Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Press and Members of Parliament

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will move to set up a select committee to inquire into relations between the Press and Members of the House of Commons.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): No. I do not think this would be appropriate.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recent events have not significantly improved the relationship between Members of Parliament and the Press Lobby? Is he further aware that this relationship is built on mutual trust and that its breakdown can only harm Parliament? Is he aware that a free Press, with all its shortcomings, is often the only safeguard of the liberty of the individual? In these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend have another look at this question and consider whether he ought not also to have another look even at the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.

Mr. Deedes: I am the last person to underrate what is at stake here, but it does no justice to the good sense of journalists or Members of Parliament to suggest that there is a crisis in our relationship.

Development Districts and Unemployment Areas

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister without Portfolio what steps he is taking to co-ordinate publicity activities abroad

among industrialists about the potentialities of expansion in development districts.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister without Portfolio in view of the breakdown of the negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community, whether he will increase the amount of publicity designed to attract foreign industrial investment in areas of high unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deedes: I have arranged for a study to be made of the means by which home and overseas publicity for the development districts might be co-ordinated. When that study is completed, I shall consider, in consultation with the other Ministers concerned, what further steps may be necessary.

Mr. Ross: Has the right hon. Gentleman no information about the success of this in the past? Is he aware that there is a feeling that there is far too much provision of offices with dusty leaflets and information and too little active pursuit of the kind of business we want to ensure that everyone knows the opportunities that are available in places such as Scotland?

Mr. Deedes: I have been looking into the arrangements made by all the development districts. It is very important that we should make the best possible use of the resources that they have for making their needs and their assets known. I have that particularly in mind in relation to Scotland.

Mr. John MacLeod: Can my right hon. Friend say what co-ordination he has with the publicity put out by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board?

Mr. Deedes: At the moment none.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister without Portfolio what liaison he has with the British Industries Development Office in New York on the matter of publicising industrial facilities available in areas of high unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deedes: None directly, Sir. The British Industrial Development Office in New York is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the


Board of Trade, who is of course in close touch with its work.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this could be a very useful function to be fulfilled by his Ministry? When he thinks of the efforts which might be made, will not the right hon. Gentleman keep this type of thing very much in mind, remembering also that, since in many ways our own industrialists are failing to develop these areas, we should welcome industrialists from elsewhere?

Mr. Deedes: I am fully aware of that, and I will bear it in mind in relation to the Answer which I gave to an earlier Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Alton General Hospital

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the delays in the development of the Winchester and Basingstoke hospitals, it is still his policy to curtail the services offered by the Alton General Hospital.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): Yes, but only as concentration and development of services elsewhere take place.

Miss Quennell: Has my right hon. Friend therefore no plans to close the hospital in the near future?

Mr. Braine: A new hospital is to be provided at Basingstoke and a substantially rebuilt one at Winchester. Planning is proceeding satisfactorily. The new hospital at Basingstoke will take care of the expanding population in the area, but until it is available the Alton hospitals will provide some services for this area.

Hospital Attendance (Expenses)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Health what guidance he has sent to local health authorities for the interpretation, on a national basis, of paragraph 3 of his Circular 1222 of 1950, regarding expenses of attending hospitals.

Mr. Braine: The guidance to local health authorities is contained in Circular 30/51, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is an impression that this Statutory Instrument is being interpreted in some parts of the country too strictly, consequently putting more work on the ambulance service, which is the responsibility of the county and the rates?

Mr. Braine: I was not so aware, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to my attention. The position is that local health authorities have a duty, under the 1946 Act, to provide ambulance transport free of charge where necessary. Local authorities have been encouraged to take a reasonably wide view of their responsibility for providing ambulance transport. In my right hon. Friend's view, this responsibility is not narrowly restricted to medical necessity and he believes that the needs of the patients should always be put first.

Nurses, Greenwich and Deptford

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Minister of Health what is the present establishment figure for nursing staff in hospitals managed by the Greenwich and Deptford Hospital Management Committee; and to what extent the present nursing staff falls short of that establishment.

Mr. Braine: There is no recognised establishment for nursing staff.

Sir L. Plummer: Is it not about time there was one? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one of the Deptford and Greenwich hospitals recently a ward has had to be closed because of the shortage of nurses? This shortage is caused by the regional hospital board giving instructions that recruiting should stop. Will not the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend and demand now that the hospital management committees and the regional board should establish staff requirements and that they should be fully and adequately maintained?

Mr. Braine: As to establishments generally, I think there is some sort of misunderstanding about this. Existing establishments are not based on universally applied criteria. Recruitment hitherto has been on the basis of what the hospitals could get rather than on what they require. This is reasonable so long as there is a shortage of nurses, but


the steady improvement in recruitment means that the boards must exercise some control over the rate of recruitment and the deployment of staff.
As to the latter part of the supplementary question, the board has always been ready to consider with hospital management committees any problems arising from the fixing of establishments. They have already agreed to a number of concessions in the case of the hospital in question, and I will give the hon. Gentleman details if he would like them.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come when he and his right hon. Friend might offer some general guidance to hospital authorities about appropriate establishments for different types of hospitals? I am aware that there are difficulties in this, but is not anything better than leaving the fixing of establishments to the individual hospital, and then not to have them recognised either by the regional board or by the Minister of Health?

Mr. Braine: Yes, this matter is very much under consideration at the moment.

Storthes Hall Hospital, Huddersfield

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Health what plans he has for the future of Storthes Hall Hospital, Huddersfield.

Mr. Braine: To improve conditions as the number of patients declines.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that uncertainty about the future life of this hospital has been causing a good deal of concern to the staff there, that the money that has recently been spent on the hospital has made most of it extremely efficient, and could we know that there will be a use for it for the next quarter of a century?

Mr. Braine: I do not think anybody could put a time limit of that kind on any hospital in the country, however efficiently it is run. No decision will be taken to close this hospital for some years to come, and then it would only be taken after the most detailed consideration and consultation.

Southern Hospital, Dartford

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Health what proposals he has for using or disposing of the land

or buildings which together constituted the Southern Hospital, Dartford.

Mr. Braine: Part is required for Mabledon Hospital and a new trunk road. The rest will be sold.

Architects and Engineers (Salaries)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health why the costs of salaries of some full-time architects and engineers employed by regional hospital boards will in future be charged to capital funds.

Mr. Braine: Their work is wholly or mainly on capital schemes.

Mr. Boyden: Is this not a subtle way of decreasing the amount of money available for capital building? Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to extend this idea to administrative staff and clerks as a logical result?

Mr. Braine: No, the hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed. Appropriate adjustments will be made to the boards' capital and revenue allocations for next year. The change does not mean that the amount of money available for hospital planning and building will be reduced. The total amount which it is proposed to provide for hospital expenditure in 1963–64 is not affected. As regards current expenditure, all other elements of true revenue expenditure will continue to expand as planned.

Doctors (Post-graduate Training)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health what improvements in the postgraduate training of doctors employed in the non-teaching provincial hospitals he proposes to effect in the next two years.

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Extension of the schemes now being developed by regional hospital boards.

Mr. Boyden: Is not this almost entirely dependent on voluntary money? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Porritt Committee on Medical Aid to Overseas Countries particularly criticised post-graduate training of overseas doctors and, by implication, British doctors in non-teaching British hospitals?

Mr. Powell: I am glad to recognise that the schemes being worked out by


many hospital boards are enjoying the assistance of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. The development of those schemes will indicate the directions of future advance.

Cross-Infection

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health what further investigation he has made into the evidence of cross-infection in hospitals; and what recommendations to avoid cross-infection have recently been made to hospital boards.

Mr. Powell: Detailed advice was given in 1959; the action taken by hospital authorities is studied by my Department.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Minister appreciate that there is still considerable disquiet in many quarters about the incidence of cross-infection and a suspicion that not all the facts are revealed? Will he make special inquiries to ascertain what is the incidence of cross-infection in certain hospitals, with a view to taking more drastic measures?

Mr. Powell: All hospitals should have their own machinery to watch and control cross-infection. My professional advisers are in touch with hospital authorities and are watching the implementation of these measures.

Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health when is the estimated operational date for the 139 maternity beds scheduled in the hospital plan for Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield; and whether this estimated date has been revised since the publication of the hospital plan.

Mr. Brain: During 1966. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir".

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is cause for a little anxiety because of the build-up in the arrival of overspill population from Birmingham? Does he know that other Departments have found it necessary to review their plans at fairly short intervals? Will he look into the matter again and see whether there is a strong case for expediting the building of this wing, particularly having regard to the document I have in my possession from

the hospital management authorities concerned to the effect that they could start in the spring of this year?

Mr. Braine: We will look into what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I take it that he is referring specifically to the Good Hope maternity unit. This scheme is shown in the hospital plan as a major scheme expected to start before 1965–66. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is now at an advanced planning stage. The board hopes to begin building work in 1964.

Nursing Cadets

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the future of the present regulation governing the educational facilities for cadet nurses.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement on the conditions of employment of nursing cadets.

Mr. Powell: All nursing cadets are allowed one day's educational release without abatement of pay. I am authorising hospital authorities to allow a second day's release without abatement of pay for one academic year to nursing cadets not having the minimum educational qualifications which were recently prescribed for student nurses by the General Nursing Council.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement, but I reserve my judgment on whether it is entirely satisfactory until I have had a chance to consult the appropriate organisations. Will my right hon. Friend, in future, occasionally do things which are right without waiting for pressure from the House of Commons? It would give very great satisfaction to the nursing profession if he did.

Mr. Powell: I often do, but I would not deny that I stand to gain from advice and help which I sometimes receive from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this belated concession, but will he tell us what percentage of nursing cadets will be covered by it and what percentage may still continue to have


to make some deductions for necessary educational training from their already inadequate salaries?

Mr. Powell: For necessary educational training, none should need to obtain any release without pay; but I understand that about two-thirds of nursing cadets are without the educational qualifications prescribed by the General Nursing Council to which my Answer referred.

Mr. K. Robinson: I welcome the slight step forward which the Minister has made, but why is it limited to one academic year?

Mr. Powell: Because I am advised—and this is a matter on which I must be guided by advice—that nursing cadets lacking this qualification should reasonably be able to acquire it if, during their period as nursing cadets, they have one academic year with two days' study a week for the purpose.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman throw a little more light on the educational activities of the one-third of nursing cadets who will not be covered by this concession? Are they, in his view, wrongly seeking extra educational training? If not, why will not he help them by extending the concession to cover them?

Mr. Powell: This is an exceptional arrangement which is, in my view, justified by the educational qualifications now required by the General Nursing Council. It seems to follow from that logically that nursing cadets should have the opportunity, if they lack those qualifications, to obtain them.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of his very interesting reply, will my right hon. Friend say whose advice he is seeking about the one academic year?

Mr. Powell: I am guided by the advice which I received from the education authorities.

South-Western Regional Hospital Board

Mr. Wilkins: asked the Minister of Health how many members of the local authority in Bristol now serve on the South-Western Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. Powell: None, Sir.

Mr. Wilkins: That is the reply I expected. Is the Minister aware—if he is not, will he make himself aware—that prior to the introduction of the National Health Service five hospitals in Bristol were owned by the local authority, the administration of them was carried out by members of the local authority's health committee, and, as a result, many members of the local authority had a very wide experience of administration in these matters? Why is it that they seem to be winkled out or are becoming winkled out, especially—so it would appear—if they happen to be members of the Labour Party? Is not the Minister aware, also, that there is a strong and growing suspicion that appointments to this board and to the management committees of local hospitals is now becoming very much a matter of Tory prestige and patronage? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] A very good speech, and I shall make a longer one if I get the opportunity. Will the Minister himself make inquiries into the situation not only in Bristol but in the south-west of England?

Mr. Powell: This Question relates to the regional hospital board, to which I make the appointments, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman, since I make them, that there is no ground for the opinions to which he has given expression. Among the membership of this board I have to arrange for the balanced representation of all the interests and points of view in the whole of the south-western area, and no fewer than eight of the twenty-nine members are connected with Bristol.

Mr. Wilkins: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that proper consultations have been held by the South-Western Regional Hospital Board, under Part II of the Third Schedule to the National Health Service Act, 1946, with the Bristol City Council before appointing members to hospital management committees in the city; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wilkins: Can the Minister say why, as a result of that consultation, the nominees of the Bristol local authority have been rejected? I have read the Schedule to the Act, and it appears that these consultations should be made in


connection with the management committees of local hospitals. There appear to be no appointments made as a result of these consultations.

Mr. Powell: I am informed that members recommended by Bristol City Council are serving on all the hospital management committees in the city area and will be doing so in the coming year.

Mr. Wilkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answers to this Question and to Question No. 28, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment and provide more evidence.

London Hospitals (Maternity Beds)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he is making to increase provision of maternity beds in hospitals in the Greater London area.

Mr. Braine: Besides 10 new contractual beds and 49 additional beds in existing hospital accommodation, new building will provide a further 50.

Mrs. Butler: Can the Minister say whether the number of beds which he has just mentioned and the nine which were provided in the last six months are part of the hundred which the Minister promised me last May would be provided in the Greater London area? If this is so, it is a pathetic number in view of the fact that a number of hospitals are being forced, or expect to be forced, to give up their existing beds because of lack of finance. When is the hon. Gentleman going to tackle this problem with the urgency that it deserves?

Mr. Braine: The hon. Lady is quite right. The numbers that I have mentioned are part of the 100 beds to which she refers. There has been a delay due to weather conditions in providing the 20 beds at Lewisham. I must add that although conditions in London are exceptional for a number of obvious reasons 80 to 85 per cent, of births take place in hospitals, and this is well above the percentage in the rest of the country.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister not aware that a miscalculation appears to have crept into the hospital plan about maternity beds in London because those in teaching hospitals are calculated to serve the London area, whereas, of

course, they serve a much wider area than that, and will this be put right in revised versions of the plan?

Mr. Braine: I should like to have notice of that.

Hospital Facilities, Ipswich

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolution sent to him last January by the National Health Service Executive Council for the borough of Ipswich, expressing concern at the inadequacies of general hospital facilities in Ipswich, emphasising the urgency of the position and expressing the opinion that the proposed new Ipswich District Hospital should be commenced forthwith; and what action he proposes to take to deal with the matter, and to expedite the building of the new hospital.

Mr. Braine: Yes, Sir; the regional hospital board is in touch with the executive council on this matter.

Mr. Foot: Is the Minister aware that there is very great public concern both in Ipswich and in Suffolk generally regarding the shortage of acute beds, the long waiting list, the lack of geriatric facilities and the inferiority of general hospital equipment? In those circumstances, does he not agree that it is a matter of urgency to commence the building of the new hospital?

Mr. Braine: The regional hospital board is, of course, aware of all this and is making its dispositions in the region as a whole. The need to plan a new district general hospital does not make it possible for it to be commenced forthwith, but the building of additional geriatric accommodation and other improvements at the Heath Road Wing of the Ipswich and East Suffolk hospital is likely to start early in 1964. The board also expects to achieve a considerable improvement in operating facilities by the greater use of the facilities of some other hospitals in the area.

Mr. Foot: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the building of the new hospital will begin?

Mr. Braine: The board told the executive council that it hopes that construction will start in 1969 and that acute beds will be brought as far forward as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Dental Health (Children)

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to promote dental health, particularly among children.

Mr. Braine: The promotion of health education and of fluoridation. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of recent circulars giving details of the steps which local health and education authorities are encouraged to take.

Miss Quennell: While thanking my hon. Friend for promising to send me the literature he mentioned, does he realise that this country consumes per head almost more sugar than any other country in the world, and that our younger children seem to be sucking and licking and chewing their teeth away? Could he do something more positive than sending me this literature? My teeth are fine.

Mr. Braine: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the state of the dental health of our children, and I am glad that she has drawn attention to the matter. I think it would be best if she awaited the material which I am sending her before forming a judgment. A great deal of education in this field is going on at the moment with some success in my hon. Friend's own county of Hampshire.

Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. Friend right in this policy of continued fluoridation of water? Is it not wrong that we should be forced to take drugs, or more medicaments, whether we wish to have them or not, without any alternative?

Mr. Braine: Fluoride is not a drug. Fluoridation is simply the process of adding to water something which is already present there. In my own County of Essex, far example, there are people who, throughout their lives, and their ancestors for generations before them, have been drinking up to five times the amount of fluoride that has been recommended. Fluoridation of water supplies has the effect of halving the incidence of dental decay in children. I cannot think of any measure of public health more beneficial than that.

Drugs

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what further advice he has received from the sub-committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee that is considering the problems of drug control; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: None as yet.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have all been extremely patient in waiting for this report? Can he now give some indication when he is likely to be able to give a statement to the House?

Mr. Powell: Not a precise indication, but I understand the sub-committee is making good progress.

Doctors (Appointments System)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what assessment of the merits and demerits of an appointments system in general practice has been made by his Department; and if he will provide incentives for family doctors to see patients by appointment.

Mr. Powell: I agree with the views of the 1954 Committee of the Central Health Services Council on general practice.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not taken us very much further than 1954? As the situation is at the moment, there is a positive disincentive to doctors to have an appointments system in general practice because the expense factor weighs against this kind of approach? Will the Minister reconsider this matter with a view to saving time of patients and encouraging good general practice?

Mr. Powell: The matter has gone considerably further since 1954 because many practices have successfully introduced appointments systems since then, and I regard the improvement in the service which follows as the major incentive in this matter.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the better features of the National Health Scheme is the joining together of family doctors in partnership, and where they have got


that partnership I find that at least one of the partners is usually prepared to give appointments?

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we learn from the tape that the Prime Minister is going to announce, in answer to a Written Question this afternoon, a substantial increase in doctors' salaries? In negotiating this increase with the profession, will he consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) about the present method of allocating practice expenses, which militates against those doctors who want to give a high standard of service to their patients?

Mr. Powell: I think we had better await the terms of the report.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Minister any knowledge of the actual number of practices that are using an appointments system? Has his Ministry made a complete examination of how this has worked out in practice? Is he issuing any advice to other group practices or, as the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) said, partnerships, which would like to employ this system?

Mr. Powell: I am sure that it is widely known that this is favoured. Indeed, this was indicated when the 1954 Report was issued. I have not precise figures, but it has been and is spreading in the National Health Service.

Water Supplies (Fluoridation)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Health under what authority he has undertaken to indemnify local authorities and water undertakers in the event of court proceedings with regard to the powers of water undertakers to permit the addition of sodium fluoride to the water supply.

Mr. Powell: My general duty under the National Health Service Act, 1946.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that, if it is legal to add to the water supply sodium fluoride which is many times more toxic than the natural calcium fluoride found in natural water supplies, there is no need for this indemnity? On the other hand, if it is not legal so to do, is not he putting himself in a dangerous position by appearing to put him-

self above the law, which is a very serious position for a Minister of the Crown?

Mr. Powell: The advice I have received is that this is lawful, but, as there is a possibility of proceedings, I considered it to be part of my duty under the Act to facilitate the introduction of fluoridation by the offer of the indemnity.

Smoking (Lung Cancer)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what further action he proposes to take in order that the posters published by his Department in pursuance of the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning smoking and lung cancer shall be exhibited on advertising sites.

Mr. Powell: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 28th January.

Mr. Pavitt: Is this not an intolerable situation where Government policy is flouted by the joint censorship committee of the British poster industry, and cannot the Minister consult his colleagues to see about having some response to this by perhaps withdrawing poster advertising from other departments to make some sanction on the industry in view of its intransigent action? Is the Minister aware that the reason it gives is the failure to prove the fact of the causation of cancer by smoking, and, if that is so, what justification would it have in claiming that "Guinness is good for you", because it has no proof of that either?

Mr. Powell: I am in communication with the committee and I must agree that the reason it gives is a remarkably silly one, and that is that there is a difference between the proposition that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer and that cigarettes cause lung cancer. It is my hope to bring them to see this.

Mr. Lipton: Why is it taking so long to conduct these negotiations upon which the right hon. Gentleman has been engaged to my knowledge for many weeks, if not months? Is it not quite a scandalous state of affairs that a private organisation should take upon itself to censor what the Government see fit to publish?

Mr. Powell: It is a matter for the poster owners how they conduct their business. I am in communication with this committee, and I have nothing further to add at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: While expressing every sympathy with those who wish to reduce the effects of smoking so far as lung cancer is concerned, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what with attempts to stop smoking, what with some people being determined to stop drinking, and what with the curtailment of supplementary questions, life is hardly worth living?

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to overcome this difficulty by buying some time on commercial television for anti-smoking advertisements?

Mr. Powell: This is a responsibility of the local health authorities as part of their health education duties. It is their channels which I am seeking to broaden by my negotiations with this committee.

Domiciliary Services (Poliomyelitis)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health why he is not prepared to extend the scope of the domiciliary services to cover the provision of constant attendance for poliomyelitis victims dependent upon an iron lung and living at home.

Mr. Powell: The duty of providing constant attendance where this is required is most efficiently and economically performed through the hospital service.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unfortunately it cannot be provided by hospitals, and does he not agree that this would be quite apart from the benefit in human terms to the patient, and probably a much more economical way of looking after these victims than keeping them in hospital? Will he consider whether something can be done about this either through the hospital authorities or through the local health authorities?

Mr. Powell: This is a matter that I have looked at very carefully, but I must say that I cannot agree that for local health authorities to seek to provide constant skilled nursing attention could he an effective use of the resources which they deploy.

Dentures

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that National Health Service Executive Councils vary considerably in their judgment on applications for the replacement of lost or damaged dentures; what are the general principles that determine when careless-less justifies full charge for denture replacement; and to what extent these apply to dentures lost on a sea voyage or similar misfortune.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir; the degree of any financial hardship; wholly.

Mr. Sorensen: Does this not indicate a rather unsatisfactory position? Is the Minister not aware that in a large number of cases there are those who have lost their dentures under unfortunate circumstances, such as illustrated in the last sentence of my Question, and they have not been able to get new dentures save by paying the full amount? In those circumstances, would he not agree that, as it is most difficult to define or to prove carelessness, it would be much simpler to arrange that the application for new dentures should not be made within a certain time, unless under exceptional circumstances?

Mr. Powell: I do not think that this would be either a reasonable or a fair way of dealing with the matter. Loss or damage due to accidental causes must be reasonably established to the satisfaction of the executive council. Where it is not established but financial hardship would arise the executive council has discretion.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any information as to either the number or the percentage of rejections of claims of this type?

Mr. Powell: Not without notice. There is no appeal on this to me; it is a matter for the executive council.

Migraine

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of those National Health Service Hospitals, and their location, in which research into the causes of migraine is being carried out.

Mr. Braine: Clinical research and trials are in progress at the National Hospital, King's College Hospital and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in London and at the Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital; basic research into the cause of migraine is for the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Rankin: While that answer is welcome so far as it goes, does the hon. Gentleman realise that the great mass of the general practitioners can only provide symptomatic treatment for this affliction, and can he tell me what steps are being taken to evolve from the research that is now going on a curative treatment, and if this is being made widely known among the medical profession?

Mr. Braine: The Medical Research Council does not come within the sphere of my right hon. Friend's responsibility, and I cannot answer questions on that. Investigations into this affliction have been going on for a good many years. If anything is holding up research it is not lack of money but the lack of a positive lead. I cannot pronounce on what treatment a doctor can or cannot give. All I can say is that advice and treatment are available under the National Health Service from general practitioners and where necessary from general physicians and neurologists. Headache clinics are provided al the four hospitals I have already mentioned.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend whether those carrying out these researches will be in contact with the Putney Migraine Clinic? Why is not some research being made into this matter in the north of England and on the North-East Coast? Birmingham is in the Midlands.

Mr. Braine: I am confident that those engaged on this research, as one would expect in any kind of medical research, are in touch with what is going on at particular establishments.

Mr. Rankin: Since the hon. Gentleman indicated that money was not a difficulty in this case, will he try to extend the research which is going on in certain hospitals to more of the hospitals under the National Health Service by creating units for this purpose?

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Question, but I have no reason to believe that if any promising line developed the money or the facilities would be lacking. I am advised that the difficulty here is that there has been a lack of a positive lead for research workers to follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

School Leavers, Coventry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers are registered as unemployed in Coventry; and what action he is taking to find them suitable work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): Ten on 11th March. The Youth Employment Service is making every effort to find suitable employment for them.

Mr. Edelman: Is not the problem of juvenile unemployment in Coventry very serious? Is it not the case that since last year it has virtually doubled? In those circumstances, would not the Minister for Science do better to apply himself to the problem of involuntary leisure among the young rather than give them pep talks about recreation?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is true that unemployment among young people in Coventry has risen in the last year. It is satisfactory to note, however, that there were 805 Christmas school leavers of whom only 10 are now unemployed, and that no Easter or summer school leavers were registered in the middle of March.

Immigrant Trainees

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Minister of Labour how many immigrant trainees from the Commonwealth are undergoing training and retraining in his Department's training centres in the current year.

Mr. Whitelaw: No separate records are kept of Commonwealth immigrants accepted for training in Government training centres.

Commonwealth Governments (Information)

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Minister of Labour what advice is given by his


Department to Commonwealth Governments on the number of vacancies for employment in the United Kingdom, the types of employment available and opportunities for training.

Mr. Whitelaw: The advice of the Ministry of Labour on employment and training matters is always available to any Commonwealth Government which requests it. Information about the number of vacancies outstanding published by the Department monthly is sent to all Commonwealth High Commissions.

Mr. Royle: In view of the existence of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act on the Statute Book, can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that everything is done to ensure that Commonwealth immigrants have access to training so as to make themselves more fitted to take part in industry in this country?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Commonwealth immigrants are treated in exactly the same way in training as every other citizen in this country.

Sir C. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that they are not given priority over our own people?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thought I said that they are given exactly the same treatment. I can assure my hon. Friend of that.

Nottingham

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the growth of long-term unemployment in certain trades in the North and East Midlands, notably the hosiery and knitwear industry, he will establish an industrial training centre in the Nottingham area, and make it available to men and women who have become, or are likely soon to become, redundant in their own trades.

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend is considering the need for expanded training facilities in the country generally and he will bear the needs of the Nottingham area in mind.

Mr. Warbey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to do something seriously and urgently about this matter in view of the fact

that unemployment in the hosiery industry has trebled in the Midlands area over the last year? Does it make sense to expect men to make a return journey of 100 miles in order to get industrial retraining? What does the Minister intend to do in the near future about this?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It is fair to point out that the level of unemployment in the Nottingham area is below the national average. That must be borne in mind.

Mr. Warbey: Will the hon. Gentleman note what I said in my supplementary question, namely, that in the hosiery and knitwear industry unemployment has trebled over the past year and that thousands of workers who are now on short time expect to become redundant in the next few months? This is a very serious and urgent matter. Will the hon. Gentleman do something about it quickly?

Mr. Whitelaw: I said that I noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I have now noted again what he has said.

Furniture Industry

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number unemployed for over six weeks, the total number unemployed for less than six weeks, and the total number on short time in the furniture industry, expressed as percentages of the total employed in that industry.

Mr. Whitelaw: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. The estimated number of operatives in the furniture industry working short time in mid-January was 12·4 per cent, of the total number of operatives in the industry.

Mr. Hall: In view of that very high percentage, can my hon. Friend say whether there is any likelihood of the situation improving in the comparatively near future? Secondly, is there any evidence that a number of the skilled craftsmen who are unemployed are being absorbed by other industries?

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question without notice, but I should


not have thought so. On the first part, as my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made an Order, which came into operation on 13th March, relaxing certain restrictions in the hire purchase of furniture. I understand that the industry believes that these relaxations will result in increased sales of furniture. Therefore, one would hope that the situation will improve.

North-East

Mr. Pentland: asked the Minister of Labour what recent consultations he has had on proposals to reduce unemployment in the north-east of England.

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend is in constant touch with the other Ministers concerned with this problem. In addition, he has had consultations with employers' organisations and trade unions about the expansion of training facilities in the North-East which is essential if future industrial development in the area is not to be hampered by shortages of skilled labour.

Mr. Pentland: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, despite the drop in the figures of temporary unemployment disclosed last week, basic unemployment in the North-East continues to rise? Therefore, can he say when we may expect the much publicised plan from Lord Hailsham? Can we expect this to be put into effect in the very near future, because the problem is serious?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, apart from the general measures taken to stimulate the economy as a whole, a considerable number of steps have already been taken aimed particularly at improving the situation in the North-East. The hon. Gentleman also knows the very active work undertaken by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the areas where help could be given without any large contribution having to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in British shipping? Can he say whether the Government intend to make a statement on the scrap and build policy in the very near future?

Mr. Whitelaw: That supplementary question is rather outside the realm of my responsibility.

Mr. Pentland: Since the Prime Minister appointed Lord Hailsham to look after the affairs of the North-East and asked him to present a definite plan for the area, can the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question and tell me when we can expect to have this plan?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give the exact date of when my noble Friend's plan will be ready, but in view of the great urgency he has shown throughout, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not be long.

SOMALI REPUBLIC (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the rupture of diplomatic relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Somali Republic.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. On 18th March the Somali Prime Minister handed to our Ambassador a note informing him that the Somali Government had decided to break off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom because of the recent decision to create a Seventh Region in Kenya consisting of the Eastern part of the Northern Frontier District. This was designed to give the Kenya Somalis greater opportunity for the expression of their racial and religious identity. The Somali Government apparently take the view that this decision is final. The Somali Government have been informed that the decision is not a final determination. As my right honourable Friend the Commonwealth Secretary pointed out in his statement of 12th March, Her Majesty's Government, while not wishing to exclude future consideration of any method of settling this problem, did not think that at this juncture a more radical solution would be justified.

Mr. Wall: I share my right hon. Friend's regret, but would not he agree that it is equally regrettable that we have been put in the position of having to deny self-determination to the Somali areas of Kenya? While the final decision must be made by the Kenya Government, is it not clear that it will be impossible to keep those areas inside Kenya against the wishes of the inhabitants?

Mr. Heath: As I said in my Answer, we do not wish to exclude future consideration of any method of settling this problem. Naturally, we greatly regret that the Somali Government should have broken off relations with Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Kershaw: By not grasping this nettle now, are not we leaving a built-in cause of war between Kenya and the Somali Republic?

Mr. Heath: We shall do our utmost to find a solution to the problem together with the Kenya Government. That is a quite separate question from the specific Question with which I am dealing, namely, the question of our relations with Somalia.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Minister aware that one of the problems of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century was that political frontiers were drawn through tribes and other organisations in Africa completely contrary to the natural and native life of these people? Is it not time that European Powers looked at this problem as in the present case?

Mr. Heath: We are well aware of the difficulties involved in this type of problem. It is, however, difficult to find a solution because of the many different factors involved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations explained to the House that he did not think that a more radical solution was possible at this juncture.

N.A.T.O. (PARIS DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal what official British proposals on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence and political policy were put forward by the Foreign Secretary during his recent discussions in Paris.

Mr. Heath: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement on this subject that I shall be making in the House tomorrow.

Mr. Warbey: Why must we wait until tomorrow in view of the fact that the speech of the Foreign Secretary, which was made last week, has already been fairly fully reported in the Press? Will

the right hon. Gentleman at least give the House the assurance that it is not the intention of the Government that British foreign policy, as well as British defence policy, shall in future be made in secret conclave at the N.A.T.O. Alliance?

Mr. Heath: There is no question of British foreign policy being made in secret conclave. As I have already explained to the House, however, there are certain times when it is necessary to have confidential discussions with one's allies. If the hon. Gentleman will await my statement tomorrow, perhaps he will be able to ask a supplementary question about it.

PERSIAN GULF SHEIKDOMS

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Lord Privy Seal what relationship Her Majesty's Government envisages for the future between the United Kingdom and the Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Heath: The Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf, Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States, are independent Sheikdoms, having special treaty relations with the United Kingdom governing their international relations. Their relationship with Her Majesty's Government could be reviewed and adjusted when required, but the Rulers have expressed no desire that this should be done. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government's obligation to protect these territories remains.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that these treaties are now dangerously out of date? Will he institute a special and thorough review of our whole responsibilities and political position in the Gulf, otherwise we shall let ourselves in for a great deal of avoidable trouble and embarrassment in the near future?

Mr. Heath: I do not share the hon. Member's view about the nature of these treaties. The situation in the Gulf is, of course, under the constant attention of Her Majesty's Government. Kuwait, for example, developed through a gradual process to complete independence, which culminated in the exchange of letters on 19th June, 1961. That is an example of how the situation has developed. I assure the hon. Member


and the House that the whole situation in the Gulf is constantly under our attention.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is not satisfactory, that Kuwait is not an analogy, that the other Sheikdoms are in no way comparable and that neither the Sheikdoms nor the policy of Her Majesty's Government appear to be at all viable in the near future?

Mr. Heath: I gave the example of Kuwait as an instance of a Sheikdom which had developed to complete independence. I am not saying that the other Sheikdoms in the Gulf are capable of doing that. What is necessary is that our policy towards the Sheikdoms should be up to date, and I assure the hon. Member that that is so.

SOUTH AFRICA (AIRCRAFT SERVICE FACILITIES)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Lord Privy Seal what negotiations have been entered into with the South African Government for the provision of refuelling bases and repair facilities in South Africa for British military aircraft.

Mr. Heath: These facilities are already available to British service aircraft when required.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that an extension of these facilities has recently been sought as part of a military deal with the South African Government under which it is to be helped to obtain Buccaneer bombers from this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this kind of military deal with South Africa is deeply deplored by all civilised opinion in this country—[HON. MEMBERS "Nonsense."]—which is not happy to see this kind of quid pro quo—bases for Britain against bombers for South Africa—when we know that the armaments which we send there will be used for the oppressive policy of apartheid?

Mr. Heath: There is to be no question of a military deal of the kind suggested by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Wall: Is it not the case that while, clearly, we deprecate the internal policy of the South African Government. we

have a joint responsibility for the defence of the Southern Atlantic and the Southern Indian Ocean?

Mr. Heath: I have explained to the House that that is why these facilities are already available.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Lord Privy Seal consider giving us a White Paper setting out details of the arms which have been supplied to the South African Government over the last three years and of any military arrangements that may have been made?

Mr. Heath: As I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware, details of the sale of arms to particular countries are never published in the form which he suggests.

VIETNAM (TOXIC CHEMICALS)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Lord Privy Seal what reply he, as co-chairman of the 1954 Geneva Conference on Indo-China, proposes to make to the protests sent to him by the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in a Note dated 22nd February, 1963, about the use of American aeroplanes to spray toxic chemicals on the vegetation and rice fields in North Vietnam.

Mr. Heath: I have received no communication regarding the use of toxic chemicals in North Vietnam. As regards the use of chemical defoliants in South Vietnam, I understand that the Government of North Vietnam has made a number of complaints to the International Control Commission. It is for the Commission to decide whether these complaints fall within its competence.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over the years since the 1954 Conference hon. Members both sides have complained of what some of us believe to be the Government's lack of acceptance of responsibility as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference? Will the Lord Privy Seal publish for the House reports of the International Control Commission on the conditions which it has found as the result of the use of these toxic chemicals, supplied by the United States, against North Vietnam and the price in vegetation and life and limb to the people of this tragic little country?

Mr. Heath: I will certainly see what reports are available on the subject from the International Commission. I know that the hon. Member follows these matters closely. He will realise that the purpose of these defoliants is to remove leaves from the trees without damaging the trees or the ground beneath so that the guerillas cannot hide there.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that the Americans have for three years been carrying on an undeclared intervention in the civil war in South Vietnam, employing 12,000 armed men of their own and using methods of which some of us would not approve if they were used in British territories, is it not time that we at least took the step of withdrawing the British Police Mission from Saigon, thus at least relieving ourselves of co-responsibility in this dirty war?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir, certainly not. The main illusion in the last three years seems to have been that of the hon. Member that North Vietnam had nothing whatever to do with this.

DISARMAMENT

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to make to the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee concerning the levels of manpower to be permitted in the armed forces of signatory States at the end of the first and second stages of a treaty for general and complete disarmament.

Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend told the House on 20th March.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Lord Privy Seal ask his noble Friend to look at this matter again? Does he really think that the present Western proposal is satisfactory when it would mean that at the end of the sixth year of the disarmament treaty the major Powers would still have more men in their forces than Hitler had in the summer of 1939, and that they would be much more powerfully armed?

Mr. Heath: My noble Friend follows this matter with the closest interest. The right hon. Gentleman knows the actual figures which are involved, but I do not think that this is one of the major problems at present facing us in this particular matter.

Mr. Millan: Is it not one of the major problems? If there is really no obstacle to agreement on this matter, why cannot we get agreement and at least make a slight step forward? Is it not an extraordinary piece of reasoning to say, as the Minister of State said last week, that because there is no obstacle to agreement, there is no urgency for getting agreement?

Mr. Heath: If we could get agreement on the other matters, such as the reduction of armaments, verification and peace-keeping, I do not think that the difference which exists concerning the level of forces would prove to be a major obstacle.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not manpower an important factor in the conventional forces, in which we say that Russia has great superiority? Since Russia has proposed a much greater reduction than the Western plan, ought we not to consider a compromise which would be in our interests?

Mr. Heath: It is not so much a question of the actual amount as of the way in which one tackles this problem in the Disarmament Conference. That is the only difference between us.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Friesian Cattle (Import)

Mr. Mackie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what protests he has received from any of the breed societies or any other farming body about the importation of Friesian cattle from Holland, one of which was found to be suffering from leptospirosis.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): None, Sir.

Mr. Mackie: Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary feel that that is rather strange considering what was let loose on his right hon. Friend 18 months ago when a Charollais animal took this disease?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No; I do not think that there is any comparison between the two. In any event, since


that happened arrangements have proved so efficient that I think there is no longer any cause for anxiety.

Mr. Mackie: Owing to the most unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to my supplementary question, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Beef

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the low prices being realised for beef, of the size of the subsidy bill and of the high prices being charged to the housewife; and if he will take steps to protect both the British producer and the consumer.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Prices for beef are low and this is affecting the cost of deficiency payments. The producer is, of course, protected by the fatstock guarantee scheme. Retail prices have been reduced in many shops and the opportunity is there for the consumer to take advantage of the low prices.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for example, in the Louth cattle market on Friday beef was sold at the average price of 100s. cwt. against a guaranteed price of 168s., that the farmers are dissatisfied, and the housewives, who are paying more money for their beef, and have got to find probably £100 million subsidy? Is it not time to do something about it?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend will realise that some of the figures he has given are not exactly accurate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am fully aware of the fact that prices have dropped recently. The fatstock guarantee scheme does not give a guarantee on every individual item sold, but is in general an overall guarantee throughout the year.

Mr. Peart: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said in his reply to his hon. Friend, could he give us the figures? It is extremely difficult to get them from the Minister of Agriculture. They have not been forthcoming. Can we have some real figures about prices?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Prices on the fatstock market dropped to about 120s., on 20th February, and have gone down further since then.

Mr. Peart: To the housewives?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: For the housewife there has been a drop in retail shops varying from 2d. lb. to over 6d. lb.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is causing great concern to a large number of people, and if the Government's hands are tied by previous trade agreements so that they cannot do anything about it, will he say so on behalf of the Government? If not, can some action be taken?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that our hands are not tied. In point of fact, the level of imports of beef this year has not risen appreciably over those of previous years.

Mr. C. Royle: Is not the situation as we see it today due to the ridiculous scheme of deficiency payments, and is it not about time that we overhauled the system of marketing and a better system of marketing were brought into being for the meat trade? What has happened to the Departmental Committee which the Minister appointed on the marketing of meat? When is it going to report?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Taking first the last of the three points the hon. Gentleman has raised, I think the Committee will be reporting in the near future.

Mr. C. Royle: When is that?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not agree with his suggestion that the fatstock guarantee system has not worked well. I think it has worked extremely well, but, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement on the Price Review, we are looking into the existing open-endedness of the whole subsidy and in due course the Government will make proposals.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that the Minister challenged my figures, which I rather resent, since they were given to me by farmers going to the market on Friday, that the price of beef was 120s. cwt. against a guaranteed price of 168s. cwt., will he please tell the House which of these figures is wrong?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was not challenging the individual figures my hon. Friend gave in connection with his own particular market. I was only drawing attention to the fact that those were not average prices.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a debate on a Question to a Minister.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

3.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I imagine that by now many hon. Members are rather weary of this Bill. I confess I sympathise with them. A Bill of 116 pages is always a demanding proposition. However, I am glad to say that we have nearly reached the end of it. By its very nature it has been inevitably a very long Bill. In Standing Committee and on Report we have examined this Bill very thoroughly. This has inevitably taken time, but I believe that we have got through it without unnecessary delay. Indeed, throughout our proceedings we have maintained a constructive and purposeful approach to the Bill.
Although it is plainly invidious to mention names when so many hon. Members have contributed to the examination of the Bill, I cannot ask the House to take leave of it without referring briefly to the outstanding contributions made by some hon. Members, even at the risk of being invidious. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has impressed us all by his detailed knowledge of the Bill and by his determination to make it work. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science and myself have received great personal courtesy from the hon. Member. I should like to pay him our thanks in public.
The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has made a number of helpful and constructive suggestions during the course of our proceedings, especially on legal matters, some of which at least we have been able to incorporate into the Bill. I can say that as far as I am concerned he has been a most helpful lawyer. The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has, if I may say so, played a determined part in all stages of the Bill. On this side, I confess, we have not always agreed with the hon. Lady, and I think that she

would have been surprised if we had agreed with her on all occasions, but her extensive knowledge of and deep concern for the average shopper has impressed us all. But I still cannot agree with her that the average shopper is necessarily always a she. It is no longer "square" for dad to do some of the family shopping.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has been tireless in his efforts to champion the cause of the lady drinker and to ensure that she should not be compelled to drink one jot too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) has put his considerable technical knowledge, especially on baking matters, at our disposal and, I believe, to our advantage. It is unfortunate that by the rules of order we have been unable to sample some of the products under discussion, especially, in his case, baking products.
To these and many other hon. Members my hon. Friend and I are very grateful for their knowledge, their interest, and, above all, for their personal courtesy. They have made our task in handling the Bill not only tolerable but also agreeable. I wish also to thank my officials in the Board of Trade and the parliamentary draftsmen far the formidable task which they have so successfully fulfilled. Any success which my hon. Friend and I may have achieved has been due to them, and any failure entirely our own fault.
In moving this Motion I should like to mention some of the main points which have emerged during our discussions and to remind the House how these fit into the framework of the basic principles of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science will reply at the end to any specific points which hon. Members may wish to clarify, and I anticipate a few; but, first, we must be clear about the Bill's task. It is to regulate those aspects of buying and selling which are concerned with quantity.
I am satisfied that on those basic principles, the broad structure of the Bill, and the necessary powers of national and local government involved in this task, there has been and there is very little disagreement between the two sides of the House. Our discussions have concerned the very important


details of how to put those principles into practice and of the exact limits to which these powers should extend. In other words, we are all agreed on the desirability of protecting the consumer as far as is practicable, bearing in mind the whole time that retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers and producers have their rights, too.
What we have discussed and, in general, are now agreed on is the definition of "practicable". In some cases it is not practicable to do as much to protect the consumer's interest as one might at first have thought or intended. Other considerations, usually technical ones, override it. In Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House we have tried to explain these other considerations, and where relevant, the detailed reasons for following one course rather than another. Sometimes the reasons have, I fear, been very detailed.
Hon. Members, I hope, now appreciate why the Bill is so long and so complex, but, as became very clear in our debate on points of detail, both attitudes and circumstances in this field can vary widely. One of the most important features of the Bill is that while it unequivocably embodies certain basic principles it allows for flexibility in their application. It provides for two sorts of changes: first, changes in public attitudes towards the subject of consumer protection; and, secondly, changes in methods of production, distribution, marketing, retailing, and so forth.
This is, therefore, in some ways an experiment in legislation, but I am sure that it is an experiment on the right lines. No more than could the drafters of the 1878 Act, or even of the 1926 Act, have foreseen the nature of trade today, changes in methods of retailing, packaging, and so forth, no more can we forecast precisely how goods will be bought or sold in forty, fifty or eighty years' time.
We have endeavoured to make allowance in the Bill for the fact that we are not prophets; we have recognised that change is not merely possible but certain. Examples of this are the powers given in the Bill to make orders varying or extending the provisions of the commodity schedules, both in the details of their requirements and in the goods to which they apply. The Commission on

Units and Standards, which the Bill sets up, will keep under review the basic definitions of the units of measurement. When the fourth dimension becomes assessable in trade, we shall no doubt be able to adapt the marking regulations to take account of it.
I should like to mention one or two of the main issues which stood out in Committee and which formed the background to our discussions. I repeat that the Bill deals only with quantity. But within this field it ranges very wide. For example, hon. Members have complained that it does not deal with the problem of deceptive packaging. But, although the Bill does not contain the phrase "deceptive packaging", it deals with this problem in a general way, as the Molony Committee recommended.
It does this by requiring, first, that prepacked goods should be marked with their quantity—and this marking will, of course, have to be clearly legible; the House will recall that there are in the Bill powers to make regulations to ensure that this is done—and, secondly, that many staple commodities should be prepacked only in specified quantities. I realise that some hon. Members would like even more articles to be subject to this requirement, but, again, I remind the House that there is power in the Bill, by order, to extend the range of products which will have to be packed in specified quantities.
Then there is the question of weight at the time of sale. The basis of all the Bill's requirements to provide information for the buyer is that this must relate to the weight of the goods at the moment he or she takes possession of them.
The Bill further requires information about net weight wherever possible; but it recognises that gross weight is sometimes unavoidable. This is connected with the previous point; if the customer is to learn weight at the moment of sale—and we believe that this is the right point at which the customer should know the weight—with prepacked evaporable goods we must, in a number of cases, allow gross weighing. This has been the subject of considerable discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill. Clearly, this exception from the net weight provision must be strictly limited.
In response to very constructive and persuasive arguments, we have amended the Bill as originally drafted to exclude from the gross-weighing provisions pre-packed butter, cooking fat, margarine, dried fruits, oatmeal, sugar and a number of other products. I hope that one day it will be reasonable to insist that all products be sold by net weight—even fresh fruit and fresh vegetables when prepacked. The only point that has divided the hon. Member for Hillsborough and myself has been the tactical one of when it would be right to insist on this; there has been no strategic objection to this being done.
I should mention another alteration which we have made at the instance of hon. Members. This was to restrict the provision that customers might weigh certain goods for themselves—the famous Clause 33 (3)—only to those products where the difficulties of loss of weight were greatest, namely, fresh fruit and vegetables. These two Amendments made should ensure that the shopper gets the most precise and reliable information possible about weight. I am grateful to hon. Members for the constructive way in which they have argued their case.
Finally, I should perhaps say something about the orders and regulations which the Board of Trade will be issuing after the Bill is enacted. A number of regulations, concerned mainly with the construction, testing and stamping of weighing and measuring equipment will be issued within six months of enactment. In the main, these regulations will be a reissue of existing regulations made under Acts to be repealed. There will be neither time nor need for detailed consultation with those concerned. An order will also be issued within six months giving an authoritative translation into English of existing international definitions of metric and electrical units.
As soon as possible after enactment, the Board will also issue the various regulations affecting the commodity schedules of the Bill which come into force two years after enactment. These will be fairly lengthy and complicated. For example, regulations will be issued under Clause 21 (4) about the manner of marking containers with required information. It is the Board's intention

to consult interested parties about the substance of these regulations in good time.
In addition to the orders and regulations which the Board will issue under the powers conferred by this Bill, it intends also to issue explanatory memoranda to weights and measures authorities about the provisions of the Act. I hope that this will be a help to weights and measures authorities in the formidable task which they will have in altering, in some cases, their procedures and bringing them into line with the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
It is not my intention to speak at any length today. As I said, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science will be here to take up specific points which hon. Members make. I hope, therefore, that with these few introductory remarks we may move on. Those hon. Members who have laboured on the Standing Committee will doubtless join me in hoping that we have here a Bill flexible and forward-looking enough to last through our lifetime at least, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his kind remarks about my part in the discussions on the Bill. Strange as it may seem, I have thoroughly enjoyed the work in which I have been involved. Whatever credit goes to me should, I think, be shared with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and other hon. Members who have worked very hard. I have very often been their mouthpiece after they have done the work.
We should particularly thank those weights and measures inspectors and leaders of trade associations who have willingly given us all the advice and information that we needed, advice and information which we regularly asked for. They did a tremendous amount of work for the whole Committee, not just for ourselves.
This is not the last time that we shall be talking about the Bill. I think—at least, I hope—that in a week or two we shall have Amendments from another place to consider—that is, if the Government do not drop this Bill when it gets


to another place, as they have done on other occasions, though I think that this Measure has gone too far to be dropped at this stage.
I think that we shall have to deal with Amendments because the Bill, in our view, is still defective in some matters—there is that last chance to amend and strengthen its weaknesses—but this is the last opportunity we have to comment on the principles of what is a major piece of legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a rather short introductory speech. I well appreciate that, because he was faced with a difficulty. He could either be short, just mentioning the main principles of the Bill, or he could go into a great deal of detail about it, and I imagine that he would have been speaking for the next hour if he had attempted to do so. However, I must point to what we consider to be the Bill's weaknesses.
In doing so, we have to emphasise again that this is a major piece of legislation, because it will lay down some of the rules for the conduct of trade in this country not only for the next ten years but, we hope, well into the next century, as we repeatedly said in Committee. It is, therefore, important to housewives and shoppers generally, because it seeks to ensure that they get honest weight and measure when they go shopping. We should not forget that it is also tremendously important to traders, because it seeks to protect the honest trader from the unfair competition of the unscrupulous and dishonest operator who may be engaged in trade at the moment, the minority of dishonest traders.
Obviously, the provisions of the Bill must be made known to the public and particularly to weights and measures inspectors and to traders, and so on, who are to operate the new rules to be laid down. I hope that I shall be in order in making a complaint against the Press, the radio and television for paying so little attention to the Bill and our discussions about it. We are often criticised for sparse attendances in the Chamber and it is not often that we get a chance to hit back, but the Press, radio and television have not treated us fairly in this matter.
They have a cock-eyed sense of news values when they ignore what Parlia-

ment does to improve the legal protection for millions of shoppers and hundreds of thousands of shopkeepers. But I will not go into it any further. I am an old reporter myself and I can explain why it is that news editors have such a poor sense of news values.
The Bill brings our weights and measures legislation up to date, or it would do it if were slightly better and if our Amendments which were designed to improve and strengthen it had been accepted. We have succeeded in persuading the Government to accept many of our constructive proposals, as the Parliamentary Secretary said. It is, therefore, a somewhat better Bill than, when we first received it and it has an honoured background, if I can put it that way, for its antecedents go back to the eighteenth century, as the Ninth Schedule explains. We are breaking with the past to some extent and any weights and measures Bill which comes before Parliament today ought to be forward-looking so that no mare legislation of the kind is needed at least until well into the twenty-first century.
Our main complaint against the Bill is that in many important aspects it is too much concerned to protect existing trade practices, even when those practices run counter to the Bill's basic principles. The Bill could have been better used to put pressure on traders to accept changes and modern ideas and modern methods, but Conservative opposition to change is not confined to weights and measures legislation.
We want changes which will lead to progress, desirable changes in techniques and methods. Some countries can teach us a lot about modern weights and measures legislation and modern methods of consumer protection. There are some countries which have made changes by measures which we would not like to operate. I call the attention of the House to a report which recently appeared in The Times about a case in the Soviet Union.
I read with some alarm that a Soviet district court had sentenced two men to be shot
for saving fat on the frying of pirozhkis (pies) and pocketing the money saved from not selling them at lower prices.
The two men who organised the pie fraud were the director of the governing body of the station restaurant at Sverdlovsk in the


Urals, 850 miles east of Moscow, and the restaurant manager.
The director invented an automatic fryer which saved two to three grammes of fat on each pie compared with the amounts laid down in the regulations. This saving, however, was not passed on to customers in lower prices but was shared out among the director and 55 accomplices. The inventor pocketed 400 roubles (about £158) a month.
Other members of the 'gang' received prison sentences ranging up to 15 years.
That lamentable experience in another country proves the need for protective legislation, but I think that we would all agree that the sentences were rather harsh.
The basic principle of the Bill is that customers shall know the weight or the measure of the goods they buy. To make sure that they are not misled, the Bill lays it down that what they buy shall be sold only in specific weights or quantities, except where that is technically impossible. The principles are simple enough, but the trading operations with which we are concerned are now so complicated and the range of goods sold to domestic and other consumers so immense that the rules we have had to lay down are inevitably complex, which is why we have such a difficult and complex Bill.
We recognise and accept the complexities, but we see no reason why we should depart from the principle, for instance, to satisfy the out-of-date methods of fruit and vegetable marketing which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, the out-of-date methods from which we suffer in this country. I raise the matter again because we have been repeatedly told that it is impossible to sell soft fruits and vegetables by net weight and in pre-packed containers. During the last few weeks, because of the severe weather which we have had and its effect on crops in this country, we have been importing vegetables from the United States of America—in packs, prepacked and marked with the net weight. They have come all the way from California and weights and measures inspectors here have opened the packs and found exactly the net weight. If it can be done for journeys of that description, I fail to see why it is impossible in this country.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to face up to this again, because if we start importing soft fruits, for instance, from the Continent in net weight containers,

what answer are we to give to housewives who ask why it cannot be done here? Is the answer to be that we must continue giving a premium to our growers for their inefficient methods?
I have asked this question half-a-dozen times and I finally ask it again, hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science will at least try to give an answer. If he cannot do so, I hope that somebody else will—I want somebody to tell me and I do not care who it is. Why is it impossible to put 9 oz. of strawberries into a basket at the grower's end, transport them quickly in cooled wagons or trucks to a modern wholesale market and to the shops, so that the loss of weight is so small that the customer can rely on getting ½ lb. of strawberries when she pays for ½ lb.? I have many times asked for an answer to that question, but I am still waiting for a reply.
I know the beginnings of the answer which I shall get. We shall be told that because our wholesale marketing and methods of transport are about half a century out of date, we cannot lay down rules for soft fruit and vegetables which we can lay down for meat and cheese and even for apples and pears and potatoes. I see no reason why, just because our marketing methods are so inefficient, we should give a dispensation to growers and marketing authorities who have failed to do their job.
Suppose we laid down that there was no dispensation, as in the notorious Clause 33 (3), and we insisted that the fruit and vegetable marketing business in this country had to become efficient; how long would it take to get modern, regional wholesale markets and cool containers and better methods of transport into operation? Shall we say three years?
Would it not be better to insist that fresh fruits and vegetables—along with all the other commodities; meat, fish, apples, potatoes, and so on—should be sold by net weight and then delay the operation of this rule for, say, three years so that an opportunity could be given, to the Ministry to begin with, to lay down plans to the marketing authorities which could be passed on so that, in that time, the growers could set up co-operatives to ensure that the job was done properly? The Government have made a grave mistake in giving this


dispensation in the Bill, and there are other defects which we are sorry we were not allowed to remedy in Committee.
The wholesale supply of fish raises a number of questions. We know that most of the modern suppliers of fish at the ports supply this commodity on a net weight basis to the retailer—the fishmonger. We are told, however, that we cannot write anything in the Bill to make that sort of operation general because, heaven help us, some ports are without weighing machines. For this reason, simply because adequate weighing machinery does not exist in some ports, the Government have allowed the dispensation in the Bill.
The Government must be aware that most of these ports—or the fish sections of them—are run by the local authorities. If a local authority cannot install a weighing machine and put the cost on to the rent charged to the fishermen for the services provided, that is quite beyond me and I cannot understand why local authorities cannot take that step. Here again, the Government are not prepared to act and, instead of making a constructive step forward, they give a dispensation; merely because some ports are inefficient. This is a great mistake.
It is not only in defence of inefficiency that the Government have departed from the principles of the Bill. They appear to have departed from them for reasons which my hon. Friends and I still cannot understand. There is the question of whether or not weights and measures inspectors should be allowed to stop coal carts, as they have done since, I believe, 1878. Why should they not be allowed to stop coal lorries to check the weight of the coal being carried? Provision to do that was contained in the old legislation. It has worked well over the years, but, for some reason which we cannot understand, the Government have decided to dispense with it now.
It has been suggested that the Government are afraid that if that old provision were carried forward into the Bill people would dress up as inspectors and hijack coal lorries. Is that the real reason? And will the inspectors go about in plain clothes? We accept that the majority of coal merchants are honest and perform a good job for the customer. There are

others, we are told—a minority—who are not so honest. I have been told that notes have been pinned up in the cabs of some lorries with the registration numbers of the inspectors cars' printed on them so that lorry drivers can tell whether an inspector is coming their way.
The story goes on to explain that the registration numbers have even been printed in reverse—mirror style—so that the lorry drivers can see, from a glance in their driving mirrors, whether an inspector's car is following them. Thus, the dishonest boys are able to get away.

Mr. Cyril Bence: That was my story.

Mr. Darling: A very good one, too.
In his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned deceptive packaging. Both he and his hon. Friend assured us in Committee that Clause 21 (4) would give adequate protection against the practice adopted by many manufacturers of putting too little into too big a package and labelling it "giant size", "jumbo", "large economy pack" and other phrases designed to deceive the customer. The Parliamentary Secretary considers that because a package must now be marked with the net weight of the contents the customer can look at the net weight and so will know, whatever the size of the packet, that if "½ lb." is marked on the packet ½ lb. of the goods in question will be inside. The hon. Gentleman went further and said that, in any case, the marking on the packet would have to be clear and legible.
I regret that an Amendment moved by my hon. Friends on this matter was rejected in Committee, because I am still not convinced that Clause 21 (4) will give adequate protection against deceptive packaging. I hope that the Government spokesman in another place will be more forthcoming than was the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee on this subject. Despite the assurances we have been given to the effect that deceptive packaging will not operate against the consumer, we still believe that the housewife will remain open to exploitation by some traders, despite the admittedly good provisions in the Bill.
It has been explained why, for good and technical reasons, some manufacturers pack their goods in what are called "odd weights" and these include such


weights as 5¾ oz., 7¼ oz., 10⅜ oz., and so on. These are confusing weights and a housewife faced with discovering the value of goods marked "5¾ oz. at 1s. 6d." as against "7¼ oz. at 2s." cannot be expected to work out in her head which one is better value than the other. The only way for her to know whether she is getting value for money is for the price per unit to be marked on the container or the goods.
We have heard a lot, on Second Reading and in Committee, from the Parliamentary Secretary about fair prices. In fact, we received almost a theological lecture on the subject. However, the Government have taken great care to weaken this principle in the Bill when dealing with the subject of odd weights. This is a weakness which I regret we have been unable to remedy.
All hon. Members are generally agreed that it is a good Bill. Clause 21 contains some excellent principles to govern the weighing and measuring of goods and to ensure that the customer and the honest trader are both fully protected in the complex system of trading which now exists. The regulations which will flow from Clause 21 will be watched with great care. I have no doubt that if, as, I suppose, they must be, they are based on Clause 21, and on the relevant Schedules, they will be extremely good and will take us a long way towards the goal of complete consumer protection for which we are all aiming.
Much depends on the machinery for administering the regulations, through the local authorities, being effective. The first thing we need to ensure that it is effective is an advisory council to regularly advise the Board of Trade on how the regulations are working, what changes are needed in them, and so on. We were told in Committee that rather than have a special advisory council on weights and measures, this advisory task would be given to the Consumer Council, whenever the President of the Board of Trade gets round to setting it up. The delay really is intolerable, especially since we were told by a Government spokesman in another place that the Government should be commended for acting so promptly in accepting the recommendation of the Molony Committee to set up a Consumer Council.
That was last November, or earlier—last July, I think; a long time ago, anyhow. Since then, we have not seen a Consumer Council. We have put down Questions to the President of the Board of Trade asking whether he could, perhaps, announce the name of the chairman he might appoint, or tell us the terms of reference. We cannot get anything out of anybody on the Government Front Bench.
I do not know to what timetable the Government are working on the Bill—when they expect to see it passed—but if we get it on the Statute Book, and the Board of Trade is expecting to have advice from a Consumer Council of some kind and no such council exists, we shall have further delays in producing the regulations. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science will not skate away, as did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, by saying that some time soon we shall have a Consumer Council. We want to know today when we shall get it, and what its terms of reference will be.
The other aspect of administration that gives us a great deal of concern is the Weights and Measures Inspectorate. We are all agreed that this Bill is only the beginning, although a very important and major part, of the local administration of what, for the sake of brevity, we call consumer protection; and that other things will be brought into the purview of what is now the work of the inspectors—the Merchandise Marks Acts, Food and Drugs Act, the Sale of Goods Act, and the necessary regulations flowing from them. Those are all outside the scope of this Bill, so I shall not go into them now but it is expected that the inspectorate will grow in this way.
Further, by the Bill we are widening the scope and activities of the inspectors with regard to weights and measures. I am told, and I think that there is much substance in it, that not only are there not enough weights and measures inspectors for the job but that too little is being done to train new inspectors. Obviously, on Third Reading, we cannot go into this in great detail, but there are problems here, not only of status but of training, qualifications, and so on, and I hope that the Government will look very carefully into this aspect.
We want to simplify the administration. We want a local office in each district where customers with grievances can seek advice or lay complaints, if they have any, or ask that some sharp practice of which they have been the victims be investigated—and, perhaps, if it leads to legal action, to get the weights and measures inspector to take up the prosecution. Housewives, ordinary shoppers, have an understandable dislike of going to the police and getting themselves involved in courts of law, but there is no reason why traders should be allowed to take advantage of this reluctance.
We want everyone to look on the local weights and measures inspector as a friend in need, but there is a great danger of this legislation breaking down because the inspectorate is not numerically strong enough to carry the burdens we are putting on it. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consult the local authorities concerned and the Institute of Weights and Measures Inspectors to make sure that we have an inspectorate capable of effectively carrying out the administrative duties we impose on it.
We have pointed out some of the defects and weaknesses of the Bill, but let me say again that, despite its weaknesses, this is a very welcome Measure. It is good in most parts because the Hodgson Committee did such excellent work in its inquiries, and in its Report and recommendations upon which the Bill is based. I do not think that there can be many technical Reports that have been translated into legislation so effectively—or so belatedly. It has taken thirteen years to get this Measure almost on the Statute Book, and such delay is indefensible. It is, of course, a typical example of this Government's ham-handed and dilatory approach to their duties. But we have the Bill at last, we approve it as far as it goes, and hope that it may yet be further improved.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) that the Bill contains many very useful provisions, and I was grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for his courteous references at the outset of his speech. None the less, it is important that the House should

realise the limits of the Bill's effects after the long travail it has gone through.
The House should be aware, for example, that the effect of Clause 9 is to exclude exporters, in transactions with customers abroad, from the obligations that the Bill imposes on traders for the home market. We were told that the reason for this was that some foreign markets traded in units of measurement not acknowledged by the Bill or of general application in trade within this country, but a moment's reflection reveals that this element of non-standard units of measurements in overseas transactions is not a logical reason for exempting traders in exports from the obligations relative to weighing and measuring equipment in Part II of the Bill.
Part II deals with the equipment and instruments to be used, the stamping of them, and matters of that kind, and to the consumer and to trade generally it offers valuable protection. It is unfortunate that equivalent protection—and I should have thought it was a matter for wide agreement—is not explicitly conferred to safeguard the position of purchasers overseas. For the Bill to have overcome the difficulty that units of measurement are not equally applicable at home and abroad would no doubt have meant a good deal of work and fairly elaborate provisions, but there May be some regret that more has not been done under that head.
It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough indicated, that weights and measures comprise only a small portion of the field of consumer protection. We have, therefore, found in the course of our consideration of the Bill that our endeavours to improve consumer protection have been somewhat circumscribed. In some cases, however, consumer protection and weights and measures overlap. It is important to realise that what Parliament is doing here is simply to confer order-making and regulation-making powers on the Board of Trade. That must be recognised. Although it would have involved a good deal of work, the House of Commons could have and, I think, should have gone much further in the elaboration and spelling out of the provisions that are to govern those matters in respect of which order-making and regulation-making responsibilities are placed on the Board.
Although I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a useful Bill, I think that we should have gone further in the Bill itself in terms of definition and precision, and by the same token somewhat reduced the area of the Board of Trade's discretion, because the two things go together. I have in mind as an example of this the question of regulations under Clause 21 (4) which deals with the conditions to be satisfied when marking a container with the weight of the goods it contains. This is of importance at the point where weights and measures impinge unmistakably on the field of consumer protection. It is a power which is exercisable by Statutory Instrument, but an affirmative Resolution of Parliament is not required in respect of the matter to which I have referred although the regulations covering this point will be subject to annulment on a Prayer.
I think that in this instance, therefore, we have conferred, probably without sufficient safeguards, too wide a discretion on the Board. I feel that in the course of the proceedings on the Bill we should have gone further in defining and giving precision to the requirements which we think should be fulfilled. In other words, there will be a good deal in the orders and regulations when they come to be made which some of us think ought to be in the Bill itself.
We on this side of the House are committed to the view that in the world of today, bearing in mind the complexities of modern society, there should and must be large-scale safeguards against the abuses that can, and do, creep into an uncontrolled market. We go further in this respect than hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is one of the differences between us; but to the extent that that is our belief—and I think that this must be remembered and recognised in the country—we are the more vigilant to ensure that on every occasion when the issue arises safeguards are written into the law to protect the people from the risk of any oppressive use of the powers which we confer.
Such oppressive use will not often occur in the way we run our affairs, but it may sometimes occur, and provision must be made for the rare case. Much of our work in Committee upstairs was directed to this, and it is fair to say—

and for this I am grateful, as I am sure my hon. Friends are—that in some important instances the Government met our points. I have in mind the Amendments to the Bill designed to protect the innocent shop assistant or the errand boy whose anxieties caused us to spend a good deal of time considering this point in Committee and also other persons who, in other respects and performing other duties, might, unless proper safeguards were spelt into the Bill, suffer unjustly and unfairly from the fact that their employers were guilty of contravening the law affecting weights and measures. Both the Parliamentary Secretaries were attentive to our arguments in this respect and constructive in their thinking on the problems raised in many instances.
We are nearing the end of a long-drawn-out legislative exercise. Let us on Third Reading acknowledge the improvement in the law which this Measure achieves. Do not let us exaggerate what the Bill does, nor minimise the extent to which it confers on the Board of Trade powers to make orders and regulations which we might in some instances have done better to spell out ourselves.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, in that it gives some protection in some way both to traders and consumers in the business of weighing and measuring things for trade. But I have one regret, in that there seems to be an idea that we could not go as far as we would have liked to have gone because the industry was not capable of producing the machines and equipment to enable us to have a far greater degree of precision in the selling of goods by weight and numbers. The weighing machine manufacturing industry could raise its standards and produce equipment to measure to whatever degree of accuracy the legislature decided was required.
Another regret is that when we were discussing pre-packed soft fruits there seemed to be a failure to recognise that new artificial materials, such as polythene, are capable of holding soft fruits of all kinds without their suffering any loss of moisture. This can be seen in supermarkets on the Continent, where goods are kept for four or five days without any loss of quality, and I see


no reason why the Bill is tied down to the provisions that we can use only outdated forms of packing and packaging for soft fruits. Scientists have given us new moisture-resisting materials, and I think that the difficulties which were referred to in Committee could be overcome.
I am glad to see that in the Bill as amended a Commission is to be appointed, and that there will be no danger of any irregularity in its appointment. I was glad, too, of the assurance that copies of the standards to be considered by the Commission would be widely distributed. I hope that a copy will he given to Edinburgh, which is the capital of Scotland.
Clause 62 (2) says:
Subject to subsection (5) of this section, nothing in this Act shall affect any rights of the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London …
This is in respect of the gauging of wine and oil. Will the mayor and commonalty of the City of London be able to apply the powers given to them under their charters? I ask this because the Charter of 1311 says that the Lord Mayor of London and the commonalty can employ a Vintner who has power, on behalf of the Lord Mayor, if he finds a wine merchant selling bad wine, or giving bad measure, to force that wine merchant to drink all his bad wine and to pour the rest of his wine over his head, and according to subsection (4) of this Clause the Lord Mayor of London will retain his power under this old charter.
Am I to understand that a vintner employed by the Lord Mayor of London will be able to visit the taverns of London where they are selling cheap, inferior wine—and it should be noted that the charter refers to Bordeaux wine, with a different spelling—and force the taverner to drink his bad wine and pour the rest of his wine over his head?
Clause 62 (3) provides that
Subject to subsection (5) of this section, nothing in this Act shall affect the rights granted by charter to the master, wardens and commonalty of the mystery of Founders of the city of London.
Surely, when used in this context, the word should be the Norman form—"misterie". I understand that these founders are coppersmiths who, operating under various charters, have their own

weights and measures. They even make them themselves, and inspect them and pass them. No doubt this is how they made their fortunes in the Middle Ages. But have they still got these powers? How much longer shall we preserve these oligarchical rights of the City of London?
The Parliamentary Secretary may tell us that they do not use these rights—but they have them. If they are not used, why should they be preserved? The City of London has been excused from the operation of the provisions of another Bill which is going through the House. Why should the City be excused again here? What does this "mystery of Founders" consist of? Apparently it is an ancient guild, but I doubt whether there are any coppersmiths in it; they are probably all wine merchants, or large importers. I should like to know why the Lord Mayor and the commonalty should have their own charters, together with the mystery of the Founders of the City of London.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen fit to give weights and measures inspectors the power to stop lorries. I do not want to go all over the argument we had in Committee, but this is a very had element in the Bill. We are taking away a right which weights and measures inspectors have had for many years. This was a protection for the housewife and the consumer of solid fuel. The reasons given in Committee for taking away this right were hopelessly inadequate. I cannot see how the Parliamentary Secretary found it possible to base his case on the possibility of persons disguising themselves as weights and measures inspectors and hijacking lorries, lorries. This was the lamest reason that I have ever heard in my life for taking away this right of the inspectors. It was absolutely fantastic.
Nevertheless, there is much in the Bill which commends itself to all those who are interested in protecting both the consumer and the trader, although I would have liked to see more protection given to the trader and distributor, because they have to take things from producers which are not subject to strict regulation in the matter of weights. Many traders who have suffered because of losses due to short weight in their supplies have been tempted to indulge in practices


which are not to be commended, simply to try to recoup those losses. Sometimes such losses are unavoidable, because of antiquated marketing systems and equipment, but this Bill could have taken some account of the fact.
At the conclusion of his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he hoped that the Bill would last for our lifetime. I hope to live longer than that. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary hopes to live longer than that. The techniques and equipment involved in all the complications of measuring and weighing are changing so quickly that it is difficult for housewives to judge properly whether they are getting value for what they are paying for. This type of legislation for consumer protection must be progressive. It may be that in the next two decades we shall have to bring in new or amending legislation because certain practices have ceased and new ones have taken their place. I fail to understand on what ground the Parliamentary Secretary assumes that this is such a wonderful Bill and it will outlive us.
I am sorry that so few Members appear to be interested in this subject. I am also surprised, because we hear so many complaints about the need for consumer protection. I would have thought that much more concern would have been felt about this very important Measure.
I conclude by expressing my thanks to the weights and measures inspectors for the help that they gave us and the mass of literature that they sent us. Many of their observations were objective and informative. As a member of the Standing Committee, and having the opportunity of meeting weights and measures inspectors, I was glad to learn that there has been a revolution in the practice of local authority weights and measures departments in the last forty years, in the techniques employed and the way in which the inspectors carry out their work.
I hope that as a result of the Bill and the orders which the Government are to bring in—if the Government ever do bring them in; I do not think that they will remain long enough to do so, because they have let so many consumers down over the last decade, and consumers will probably appreciate that

another Government can bring in the necessary orders just as efficiently as or more efficiently than the present Administration—consumers generally will have a better deal.
I am glad to be able to welcome the Bill, and I trust that the manufacturers of weighing and testing equipment will be able to meet whatever demands this legislation, or the orders to be made under it, may make of them. There is no reason why our weighing machine industry should not be able to equip our shops, supermarkets, stores and everything else with the finest possible equipment in order to ensure that not only the consumer, at every level, but also the wholesaler, receives justice in the matter of weights and measures.

4.40 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his references to myself and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) who did a magnificent job during the Committee stage of the Bill by collecting information and ensuring that hon. Members from this side of the House who served on that Committee did their job.
I found this a very interesting Bill and that there was a considerable measure of good will in the Committee. Hon. Members were not constantly quarrelling with each other; they argued in a good-natured way. We were able to get some concessions from the Government and although, occasionally, we were very angry with the Parliamentary Secretary, there was, generally speaking, good will and good-tempered discussion.
This is a Bill for which hon Members and housewives have waited far too long. The absence of many hon. Members from the Chamber during this debate does not indicate a lack of interest in the Bill among people outside this House. I have found that shoppers—in the majority of cases they are "she's" and not "he's"—are greatly interested in the extent to which they are protected by weights and measures regulations and by merchandise marks and other forms of protection.
The Parliamentary Secretary has described the Bill as revolutionary. There has been a change in the methods of retailing which has made such legislation


necessary. Now we have supermarkets and mail order firms which were unknown twenty years ago. Merchandise is retailed by means of coin-in-the-slot machines, even within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
I do not think that the provisions in the Bill go far enough to afford protection against the sale of goods which are packaged in a deceptive manner. A great many people are prompted to buy articles because of their appearance rather than after taking the trouble to check the weight. While travelling in by train this morning I went to a buffet for a cup of coffee and I found that the very energetic man in charge was displaying plates of biscuits, with celery cheese and butter. I had not intended to eat anything. But they looked so attractive that I bought a plate full. Fortunately, I got my money's worth.
But I still maintain that many people buy such things as detergents and cereals because of the appearance of the packet and pay no regard to the weight, unless it is prominently exhibited on the packet. The traders who still pack the "bumper" and "better" packets of cereals and detergents "get away with it", and will continue to do so, despite the fact that in the provisions of the Bill we have tried to ensure that some of these commodities shall be sold by weight.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Science will tell us that housewives must learn, or that they should have learned by now. Goodness knows, housewives have been "done" enough times by their purchases of "bumper" and "jumbo" packets to make them cautious. But it is the duty of this House to protect consumers so far as possible, and hon. Members on this side consider that the provisions in the Bill could have been designed to give more protection against deceptive packaging.
There is provision to deal with articles sold at odd weights, such as 4 oz., 6 oz., or 8 oz. Here I make the point which I made on many occasions during the Committee proceedings and with which the Parliamentary Secretary must be "fed up". I wish, again, to refer to biscuits. Since the introduction of the Bill I have received more correspondence and representations about the sale of biscuits than about any other commodity.

It is amazing how many people do not realise—just as they did not realise that they were buying a l4-oz. loaf instead of 1-lb. loaf—that many packets of biscuits which appear to be 8 oz. in weight are not.
I was told by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson)—and I receive correspondence from manufacturers in his constituency—that it is almost impossible to retail biscuits in ½ lb. packages. When I visited a branch of the co-operative society, in my constituency, I found packets of biscuits which weighed 6½ and 7¼ ozs. But quite a lot of the packets, especially those containing the better quality biscuits made at the new co-operative factory, weighed 8 oz., and I maintain that if this can be done at one factory, it can be done at others.
I went into a shop which does not sell only co-operative biscuits, and weighed four different makes of cream crackers. These packets all looked the same, and if I had not examined them carefully I should not have known that the contents of some did not weigh 8 oz. But I took the trouble to weigh them on the scales in the shop. I did not rely on my household scales, which might not have been as correct as shop scales have to be. I found that one packet weighed 6¾ oz. net and another 7½ oz. A packet of Crumpsall biscuits weighed 8 oz. and retailed at 10d. The other two packets each cost 1s. In the Bill we have tried to ensure that the price per unit shall be indicated. But there was a glaring case of housewives getting less for a higher price.
I still think that it is possible for machines to be adjusted so that commodities which are widely bought, such as biscuits, may be packaged at the right weight. To continue retailing them at odd weights provides another way in which housewives may be deceived. Pre-packed fruit, particularly apples and bananas—in respect of which provision is made in the Bill—is often sold according to number. Particularly in supermarkets, shoppers will find four or five bananas in a package—with no indication of the price per lb.—being offered for sale at 1s. 2d., 1s. 8d. or 1s. 10d. Unless a housewife takes the trouble to weigh the fruit, she has no idea whether she is getting value for money. I am very definite about this. Pre-packed goods of


that kind should have the weight marked on them. We should not allow them to be sold by count.
I have no hesitation in coming back to a question which we "flogged" in Committee, and which has been mentioned by my hon. Friends today. That is the question of the sale of coal and other solid fuel. There was a story in the evening newspaper in my constituency last week about two people being fined for this kind of thing. In one case 10 bags of coal were concerned and not one of the bags contained the correct weight. The short weight varied from 11 lb. downwards. That is a lot in weight for a person to be short of when paying the present prices for coal.
The only way in which the public can be protected against this sort of thing is for the weights and measures inspector to be allowed to stop coal lorries and to check up immediately. There are many ways in which the coalman who deliberately sets out to defraud the customers can do so. Sometimes he goes round a corner and makes six bags from five, or 21 from 20. That is a common practice because the lorries are loaded with a ton of coal and all the driver has to do is to put on an extra bag. Unless the weights and measures inspector can stop him anywhere and check up there are many ways in which the delivery man can slip away.
After the Report stage of the Bill I spoke to the weights and measures inspector from my district, who had been in the Strangers' Gallery. He said, "You do not know by half the dodges some of these people get up to." When my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) spoke about lorry drivers having the numbers of cars belonging to weights and measures inspectors pinned up in the cabs of their lorries, I thought that he was "pulling our legs".

Mr. Bence: I was.

Mrs. Slater: He scored a bull's eye, because that has actually happened. Weights and measures inspectors have told us that it is a common practice. The numbers of the inspectors' cars are permanently in the cabs of the lorries. When they see an inspector stop at traffic lights they recognise his car and

slip away. They often go out of his area into the area of another inspector. To say that we can get the police on to the matter quickly is mere eyewash. It is not always possible to persuade the police in another area to catch up with a lorry which has slipped out of the inspector's area. I hope that the Board of Trade will look into this matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that regulations are to be made. He should see how far this problem can be dealt with. Coal and other solid fuel is an expensive item in the budget of any housewife. It has a great bearing on the standard of living of many poor people. We ought to allow nothing to escape our notice by which we can prevent fraud. I hasten to add that it is not all traders who do this kind of thing, but it is the job of legislation to protect the public against those who attempt to practise fraud. This is not protection against the good traders, but against those who deliberately set out to practise fraud. For the latter a fine of £10, £20 or even £50 is very little if they are continually getting away with this kind of thing.
I turn to the question of tinned fruits. The Parliamentary Secretary for Science told us how difficult this is. I hope that his wife—

Mr. Bence: He has not got a wife.

Mrs. Slater: Then I hope that someone else will tell him about this matter. It is one in which the consumer can be very much defrauded. In a supermarket one may buy a tin of fruit for 2s. 6d. for which, in an ordinary shop, the housewife would pay 3s. 3d. If, when she opens the tin, there is very little fruit in it but a large amount of juice, it may be all right to say that she can make jelly from the juice, but it is the fruit that she wants to serve to her family or to visitors. It should not be beyond the wit of legislators to find some control over the amount of solid fruit contained in tins.

Mr. Bence: Some traders sell glasses of grapefruit juice which has been taken out of the tins which have no fruit in them.

Mrs. Slater: For 4d. one can buy a glass of grapefruit juice which has come out of tins in which there is very little fruit.
Another question I want the Parliamentary Secretary to look at concerns blankets, sheets, towels and such commodities. I understand that representations have been made to him by an hon. Friend of his who is in the textile trade. These commodities should be subject to measures giving protection to the public. It is amazing to find how many blankets or sheets are short in the length or the width. When a housewife buys a double-bed or a single-bed sheet she rarely opens it out in the shop because it is nicely packed in cellophane. When she gets home she finds that it is 70 inches by 100 inches instead of 90 inches by 108 inches, or, if it is a single-bed size, it is short in the width or the length.
I agree that there might be difficulty over the size of towels, but I see no difficulty over sheets, blankets or bedspreads. The actual measurement in inches should be stated on them. The same applies to made-up curtains. As I suggested in Committee, they also should have the length stated on them because a shopper might buy curtains and then, when she takes them home and places them against the window, she finds that they are inches short and of not much use. Nowdays when such a tremendous amount of this business is done by mail order, the housewife finds that it is too late to get the goods exchanged, or she does not want to send the goods back, especially now that postal charges are going up. I ask that this matter, also, should be looked into.
We welcome the Bill. We think that some improvements could have been made in it. We hope that when the regulations are introduced some of these matters will be put right. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that when it becomes an Act it would last for our lifetime. It might last for my lifetime, but I do not think that it will last for his; he is very much younger than I am. As new needs arise we should take every step to see that new measures are taken to meet them. I hope that the Board of Trade will take every step to help weights and measures inspectors in their work and to give all the assistance they can to their training. I hope that in the schools careers masters and mistresses will help in this problem. There should be women weights and measures

inspectors because they know more about some of these things than some of the men know.
I hope that something will be done to encourage more people to take up this job in view of the present shortage, which is in the region of 400. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretaries will do all they can to see not only that provision is made for more inspectors, but that they have better remuneration for doing this important job. We welcome the Bill, but we hope that further improvements will be made to it in another place before it becomes law.

5.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and I feel rather sad as we approach the end of the passage of the Bill through the House. I should like on his behalf, and on my own, to thank the House for the kind words which have been said about us. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) emphasised the importance of the Bill, which he called a major Measure. Our debates have shown that it has great relevance to contemporary life. It is possibly a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, did not mention it in his letter to The Times today.
A number of matters have been raised which are not actually in the Bill and I am not sure in answering them how much I shall trespass upon your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The first, which the hon. Member for Hillsborough raised, was the question of selling soft fruit by net weight. It is worth while stating that other nations have found this to be an equally difficult problem. I understand that in the United States, taking the country as a whole, fresh fruit is generally not packaged. The practice differs from State to State. Very often open containers are used with a capacity measurement as opposed to a weight measurement—half a dry pint or a dry quart.
It must be remembered that strawberries evaporate, not merely on their way to the ships, but actually in the ships. Even though there were to be cooling compartments at the markets, in the vans bringing the fruit from the markets to the shops, or even in the


shops, it might still not be possible to insist that they are sold by net weight.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to polythene, but it must be remembered that fresh fruit must be given air. Therefore, one runs the danger either that the fruit will evaporate and get lighter or alternatively that it will not be able to breathe and will go bad.

Mr. Darling: I did not go into detail, but what we were asking for was that net weight plus a tolerance, which could be worked out, should be in the basket at the grower's end. We are not asking that the net weight should be the net weight in the shops, but that this arrangement should be made. Then, if the customer is getting a basket of fruit which has been in the retail shop for a considerable time, she can complain to the retailer. We would hope to have the net weight made up, as with other things—for example, detergents—at the packing end, plus an allowance.

Mr. Freeth: We should have to be a little careful because the Bill makes it an offence to sell overweight just as much as to sell underweight. Further, weight when packed is a concept which we generally agreed, as we studied the Bill, was infinitely inferior to the housewife knowing exactly what it was that she was buying at the moment that she took possession of it.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough, then mentioned the fact that the Bill did not insist upon wholesale fish transactions being undertaken on a net weight basis. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East wanted more protection for the retailers. Our reluctance to put wholesale fish on a net weight basis in the Bill does not merely spring from the fact that some ports may not have weighing machines. The detailed provisions of the Bill are mainly concerned with the protection of the shopper, male or female. Traders have their own means in general, through their trade associations, through their legal advisers, or alternatively by means of the contracts they have.
I must re-emphasise, as I said in Standing Committee, that it is absolutely vital that fish should reach the housewife as soon as as possible after it has been

landed. The Government are not satisfied that the retail fishmonger is, in practice, in need of greater protection from the wholesaler than the various provisions against short weight in Clause 24, for example, already provide.
We also had another run on coal inspectors not having the power under the Bill to stop coal wagons. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East and the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) also mentioned this point. We dealt with this fairly fully in Standing Committee and also on Report. There is nothing more I can add to what I said on those two occasions. The power to insist upon inspecting what is on the lorry remains when the lorry is stopped. It would be an offence to drive away. Sooner or later the lorry has to stop to sell the coal which may have expanded during the journey.
The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North spoke about deceptive packaging and did not seem to consider that Clause 21 (4) goes far enough. As I said in Standing Committee, the powers are, in fact, very wide under Clause 21 and it will be possible for regulations to state the size of the letters, where they should be put, and so on, in order to make certain that the housewife can easily see the weight of a package when that package is not required to be in a number of prescribed weights.
The hon. Lady gave us a little more biscuit lore and once again regretted that there was no price per unit and no set quantities in which biscuits had to be sold. I must say that I remain impenitently of the belief that it would be too much to demand that biscuits shall be sold in 4 oz. or 8 oz. packets, because some of them are large and relatively heavy and it is an offence to give overweight as well as underweight, as I said a moment ago in relation to another commodity. I understand that even the biscuit manufacturer which she has praised during the course of the Bill—the Co-op—manufactures biscuits in 5½ oz., 7½ oz. and 9d. sizes.
Although I think that, on reflection, the hon. Lady is probably right in saying that with the age of the supermarket and price


reductions people no longer wish, as they used to, to have 6d. and 1s. packets, which we discussed in Standing Committee, I still believe that it would be demanding too much to set these particular 4 oz. and 8 oz. sizes and to insist that all biscuits should be sold in those quantities, and those alone.
With regard to the difficulty of comparing one package costing 10d. and containing 6¾ oz. of biscuits with another package costing 1s. containing 7½ oz. of biscuits, I read in the Statist on 16th November last year that the American shopper can now carry a shopping meter in the palm of her hand. This useful device, which was invented by an accountant, an operational research analyst and a lawyer, enables the shopper, by means of concentric logarithmic scales, to compute whether 5¾ oz. of toothpaste sold for 83 cents is better value than 4⅝ oz. sold for 69 cents. Significantly, the originators of this shopping meter have in preparation a model for use with sterling currency and imperial measures.
The hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill said that he wanted to have an advisory committee. In the Bill we have the Commission on Units and Standards, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has announced that he is to announce the chairmanship and membership of the Consumer Council. Of course, the Consumer Council is not mentioned in the Bill and, therefore, it makes it rather difficult to say anything very much about it in a Third Reading debate, but I can assure the hon. and learned Member that my right hon. Friend will announce the names of the chairman and of the members of the Consumer Council literally as soon as he possibly can; and I do not think that the hon. and learned Member will have very long to wait.
As regards the advisory centres to which the general public may go in order to know their rights under the Bill, we look to the local citizens advice bureaux to help, and I know that we shall not look in vain. The hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill complained that Clause 9 excluded exporters from the operation of the demand to use certain weights and measures, and so on. The reason is that exporters are having to sell to countries which use different weights and measures, and the hon. and learned Member will remember that I

referred in column 87 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee to the fact that in Hong Kong we have the Pikul, which weighs 133⅓ lb. and the Hoon, whereas in the Sudan we have the Oke and in Burma the Kati. This is the reason for that exemption.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East referred to the City of London vintner who had the right to force the taverner to drink bad wine. Of course, the quality of wine is not a matter for a weights and measures Bill.
The hon. Member referred to the spelling of the word "mystery" in the phrase the "mystery of the Guild of Founders", which are, as he said, brass-founders. The word in the Clause, as the hon. Member stated, is spelt "mystery". On the other hand, other bodies spell it "misterie" and "mysterie". I think that it is probably fairly reasonable to spell it in the modern way in the Bill. The hon. Member was, I think, wrong in saying that the word came from the French. My understanding is that it comes from an Italian word meaning "craft, calling or employment". I think that I have dealt with the point of the City of London, which we discussed in Standing Committee.
The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to drained weight. The powers are in Clause 21, but there are certain difficulties in applying them, one being what we might call the disintegration of fruit within the tin after the tin has been soldered. But I can assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will pursue this point with enthusiasm.
The hon. Lady also referred to the fact that sheets and towels can be sold without the dimensions being stated. I have every sympathy with her. I very much wanted to get into the Bill a requirement that sheets and blankets, and possibly towels and curtains, should have to be sold with their dimensions stated. Unfortunately, it appears that such an Amendment which dealt with dimensions and not with weights and measures would be out of order, and that is why it does not appear in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough also spoke about the administration of the Bill, if Parliament enacted it, on the question of the number of inspectors.


pay conditions and status of the inspectors. I fully agree with him that the Bill will increase the duties of inspectors, but, on the other hand, many inspectors of weights and measures now carry out other duties, such as checking the poison registers at chemists and shop inspection, which, in future, might be done by a less qualified staff. It is very possible that the amalgamation of the various weights and measures authorities may enable economies to take place which will mean that the same manpower can do more effective work.
There are at the moment, I think, 202 weights and measures authorities, and it looks as though, with the procedure under the Bill where some 45 non-county boroughs stand to lose their weights and measures functions, and with what is likely to happen when the London Government Bill becomes law, whereby some 32 new London boroughs will merge as weights and measures authorities, we shall end with about 200 weights and measures authorities again. At the moment, there are 843 weights and measures inspectors and, in addition, there are 25 men who have qualified as weights and measures inspectors during the past ten years, but who have not taken up any employment in this country.
It is possible that some of these may return, and, of course, the Bill will make it possible for people to take the examination of the Board of Trade and become qualified weights and measures inspectors without first having to get the certainty of a job from a local authority, which is the position that attains now.
The pay position is rather complicated, because there is a basic scale which runs from £770 to £995. Almost every local authority pays its senior weights and measures inspectors more than this. I am told that the chief inspector of a large urban county gets just over £3,000 a year, that the chief inspector of a large Midland county borough gets nearly £2,200 a year and that the chief inspector of a metropolitan area county borough gets £1,620 in one case. There is an enormous amount of variation, and, of course, to some extent the attractiveness of the career will depend on what local authorities are themselves prepared to pay.
I have done my best—

Mr. Darling: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he will remember that I asked him to make clear, when the regulations came along and the scope of the work of weights and measures inspectors is widened, whether before that time his right hon. Friend will discuss the question of whether we have enough inspectors of weights and measures with the local authorities and the Institute. May I also ask him—we welcome the statement he made about the reduction of the number of weights and measures authorities—whether he will take any notice of the Amendment about considering applications from rural districts which was agreed on Report?

Mr. Freeth: I carefully said that it looked as though we might end up with about 200, and as there were only about six rural district councils which could be considered eligible, bearing in mind our 60,000 population guiding light, I think that the answer is likely to be about 200. I will certainly bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the hon. Member's other suggestion. Naturally, my right right hon. Friend is always pleased to enter into consultations with people who have these matters very much at heart.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Will the hon. Gentleman correct me if I am wrong? I thought that he conveyed the idea that qualified inspectors in the main would be taken off the duty of going round the shops in terms of first-hand inspection. If my impression is right, what would be the qualifications of those who go round the shops for this purpose?

Mr. Freeth: No. I was saying that at present large numbers of weights and measures inspectors carry out other duties which are not connected purely with weights and measures and that some of these other duties might be delegated to other staff, so that as the work increases, which it will do in the first few years after the Bill becomes law, the inspectors will be able to devote more time to weights and and measures duties, of which going round the shops to see the weighing equipment in operation is a most important element.
My right hon. Friend, within six months of the Bill becoming law, will issue a large number of regulations. I


have with me a list of eight which are really re-enactments of present regulations. We also hope, within the first six months, to be able to issue a further eight containing such things as the manner of marking the purported value of equipment for the use of trade, and the marking of divisions and sub-divisions of linear capacity measures. Other regulations will be issued as soon as possible, bearing in mind that consultations have to take place on a number of occasions. We have also very much in mind that one of the most important regulations which we shall hope to issue fairly soon after the Bill becomes law will be one concerning the marking of containers of goods, prepacked and otherwise.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said that he wanted to give the consumer justice by weight and measure. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said on Second Reading, the aim of the Bill is to try to establish an equivalence of power between the person who buys and the person who sells. This is what we want to do—not to give a shopkeeper's charter or a housewife's charter, but a charter which can enable both to trade together fairly, honourably, justly and profitably. I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an explicit assurance that the Government will not drop the Bill in another place, or even before it gets to another place?

Mr. Freeth: The first thing to do is to have the Third Reading here so that their Lordships can have the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

POST OFFICE (CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND TARIFF INCREASES)

5.24 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I beg to move,
That the Postmaster-General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act, 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund for the financial year ending with the 31st March. 1964.
If, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you feel that it would be proper, it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss this Motion with the following Motion:
That the limit of the Postmaster-General's indebtedness to the Exchequer under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Post Office Act, 1961, be increased from eight hundred and eighty million pounds to nine hundred and sixty million pounds.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If it be for the convenience of the House, so be it.

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged.
Since our debate is limited, I do not propose to make a long speech. I had thought of saying that I was sure that many hon. Members would be eager to participate in the debate; but there is not much evidence in that sense at the moment. I hope that the House will not think that I am unmindful of the postal side of our organisation if, for the most part, I leave it to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General to refer to that important side of our activities when he winds up the debate.
At the start, however, I should like once more publicly to express my thanks and the thanks of the Post Office for the fine work of our postmen and our engineers, in particular, during the recent spell of very bad weather. All of them, and perhaps particularly those who labour in rural areas, did a great job of work under very trying conditions. I realise from the correspondence I have received from members of the public that their efforts have been very highly appreciated.
I want, next, to plunge into the question of the finances of the Post Office. As hon. Members know, it has recently been necessary to increase the prices in order to produce an additional income of about £14 million in a full year. Perhaps there


may have been some slight misunderstanding as to why this has been necessary. First, why have Post Office profits fallen to £9 million in the present financial year? There are two reasons.
The first is that in the last two years the pace of growth has slackened. That, of course, has applied to many of our industries and services. A number of Post Office services have been adversely affected—inland letters, postal orders, parcels, local calls and even trunk calls. Although the number of trunk calls has risen, the income for each call on the average has been less than it was previously.
By the way, I thought that the other day I detected a note of surprise in the Chamber when I referred to a drop in football pools traffic as an important contributory factor. I should like to reiterate that this is so. Our income from pools—postage and postal orders—has fallen from £13 million in 1960 to £8·9 million in 1962. That is, indeed, quite a severe drop.
The second important factor is, of course, higher rates of pay and other improvements in conditions of service which have cost the Post Office about £21 million. I sometimes wonder whether those who express indignation whenever prices are raised, however modestly, or who protest that wage increases are irrelevant, have any real understanding of what has been happening since the end of the war. I should like to give the House one or two figures which I think will indicate the pattern of experience during the last ten or fifteen years.
During the last ten years, Post Office expenditure has increased by no less than £270 million. Increased expenditure to cope with business expansion I put at £90 million. The balance of £180 million, which is two-thirds of the total increase in expenditure, has been due to improvements in pay and in conditions of service, together with higher prices for goods and services. The major element, undeniably, has been improvements in pay and conditions of service.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I want this position to be made perfectly clear. Can the right hon. Gentleman break down this figure? Does the sum of £21 million

include only increases in pay, superannuation, and any reduction in hours, or does it also include higher prices for goods and services?

Mr. Bevins: No, the figure of £21 million refers to improvements in pay, the effect of the shorter working week, the consequential increase in pensions, and so forth, but it does not include any element for increased prices.
I was saying that during the last ten years our total expenditure has gone up by £270 million, the increased expenditure to cope with increasing business by £90 million, and the balance of £180 million, or two-thirds of the total, has been due to improvements in pay and conditions of service and, to a limited extent, increased prices far goods and services.
Perhaps, as an illustration of this, I may say that in 1950 the basic wage of a postman employed in the provinces was £5 15s. a week. That was his pay, without overtime or anything of that kind. Today, the basic figure is £11 3s. It is no good, with respect to hon. Members opposite, pretending that this is bagatelle. Indeed, in a high labour cost industry like the Post Office, it is a highly important factor.
On the other side of the account, there was increased income from business expansion over the last ten years amounting to over £120 million, and the difference between the increase in expenditure and the increase in income, which amounted to £150 million, has been made up by increased charges. These are the hard and incontrovertible facts of the present situation.
When cost increases vastly exceed any possible growth in net income these can be met only either by severe working economics, or by increased charges. I may well be asked whether the future offers any prospect other than the periodic repetition of this story. Primarily, the answer depends on the solutions which have yet to be found to the problems now facing the Government and the National Economic Development Council. Nothing would suit the Post Office better than a much more rapid rate of national economic growth together with less rapidly rising costs.
The studies which have been made in connection with the N.E.D.C. suggest


that the Post Office as a whole could play its full part in contributing to the 4 per cent. national growth target while maintaining overall stability of its charges, provided—and this is the crux of the matter—that rates of pay and prices did not increase by more than half the average rate of increase in the past ten years.
I am bound to confess—and I do it quite freely—that I myself heartily dislike the idea of putting up prices. I do not for one moment attempt to conceal that for months past I have considered, with my advisers, in very great detail the possibility of making economies designed to avoid any price increases at all. That is what, by temperament, I should like to have done, but temperament, of course, sometimes is a bad guide.
To have saved anything like £14 million—that is the amount of the recent price increases—would have meant such things as the elimination of second postal deliveries, the discontinuance of the use of air services for taking mails from London to Scotland and Northern Ireland; it would have meant cutting down severely on staff recruitment and so delaying both the installation and the repair of telephones; and, perhaps above all, it would have led to a lengthier time taken by operators to answer subscribers' calls.
I concluded that this game was not worth the candle. I believe that in the long run, as opposed to the short run, the public would have resented these cuts in Post Office services even more than they dislike the price increases that I announced last week.
As I have said, the scale of our proposals is very modest. They raise the total revenue of the Post Office by about 2·6 per cent. in a full year. I am sure that the extended time for S.T.D. local calls will be very generally welcomed, especially by the ladies, even though it costs £3½ million which has to be found from somewhere.
For the additional sums required I am relying, to the extent of £10½ million, upon trunk calls. Quite true, these are profitable, but they also call for more and more investment, and I do not expect the increases to lead to any real effective reduction in the demand for trunk calling. There is the further factor that the in-

crease which we have put on S.T.D. rates simply means that we shall be giving away rather less than we have been doing under our original plan, which I am inclined to think now was too generous.
The inland telegram increase should bring in about £1¼ million a year, and it will reduce the prospective loss on this service from nearly £3½ million to just over £2 million. That, I think, is an ample subsidy to that service.
On the postal side, we are seeking about £5¾ million, notably £1½ million from parcels, £1¾ million from overseas printed papers, £1 million from registration and £1½ million from money orders. All of these services are losing money more or less heavily, and even after these increases they will still be subsidised by other Post Office customers I can see nothing in their nature which reasonably entitles their users to anything like the present degree of assistance from other Post Office customers.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House may well ask during the course of the debate, "But why not at least help to bridge the gap by stimulating Post Office business where it can be transacted on a profitable basis?" That is a view which I understand and sympathise with. In fact, we have already done a good deal and we shall do a good deal more. For example, during the last year or two we have introduced the system of recorded delivery which, unlike registration, is paying its way. We have introduced postage forward parcels, bulk rates for printed papers and higher weight parcels. The development of S.T.D. and publicity for cheap rate trunk traffic has given a great stimulus to trunk telephone calls.
I agree that we must not stop there, and we are now planning an audacious large-scale publicity campaign to attract more business. This will mean making much more effective use than we have so far done of our own offices and our own motor transport, as well as newspapers and possibly television. What I want to do is to encourage trunk traffic in the off-peak periods so that plant which has to be provided anyway to meet the peak demand will be more fully used during off-peak periods. We also want to encourage local calls, and there the extension of the day rate to 6 minutes should be of quite a lot of help.
On the postal side, I think that we must now exploit, which we have not done before, the simple psychological fact that most people enjoy receiving letters. I do not mean bills or writs; I mean letters. The Post Office enjoys handling letters because they pay. If every man and woman in this country were to write only two more letters every year we should earn another £1 million at very little cost. But I am satisfied that we can do far better than that.
Still on the topic of doing more business, we have, during the past three years, had the experimental car telephone service in the South Lancashire area. It has not paid, but, at least, it has demonstrated that there is a demand of sorts in South Lancashire for a service which has proved itself to be operationally and technically feasible. I believe that there is a big potential demand for this kind of service in the Greater London area, and we propose to establish one and have it in actual operation before the end of next year.
I am planning, also, to extend the telephone information services and to publicise them more widely and more intelligently. I must tell the House that there is not a great deal of money in these services. But that is not the point; the point of the telephone information services is that they encourage the habit of using the telephone, and that is what we want.
On the postal side, I am planning to put on sale pictorial air letter forms, and I intend to introduce facilities to give a better service to the large number of philatelists, and, incidentally, to sell them more stamps for their collections.
I turn now to the question of investment and borrowing, to which the second Motion relates. We reckon that we shall, next year, earn a profit of about £18 million. As hon. Members know, our profits are used to help to finance our capital needs, which will rise from £125 million in the present financial year to £155 million in the next.
There are some people who never tire of giving the impression that the Post Office is a stagnant organisation and, in particular, that the telephone service is static. This really is an outstanding nonsense. In 1950–51, the capital investment of the Post Office amounted to only

£41 million. Next year, it will be £156 million. In 1951, the waiting list for telephones was as great as 418,000. Today, it is down to 45,000, one-tenth of what it was in 1951. Next year, our capital investment will be 50 per cent. greater than it was in 1960–61, only three or four years ago.
I do not stand at this Box to apologise for the activities or the performance of the Post Office. I see no reason why I should when there is more development in Post Office services than there has ever been in the whole history of the G.P.O. Of course, we must have this greater investment if we are to improve and expand our services, especially on the telephone side.
In a few days—here I come to the borrowing powers—we shall be approaching the limit of borrowing set out in Section 10 of the 1961 Act. In 1961–62, we borrowed £40 million from the Exchequer. This year, our borrowing has been limited to £35 million. Borrowing in these two years will bring our liability to the Exchequer up to £866 million. Since the limit laid down in the 1961 Act is £880 million, we seek by the Motion to raise the limit to £960 million. This ought to see us through the next financial year, and, perhaps, several months beyond. Next year's borrowing, incidentally, at about £70 million will increase the total liability to about £935 million.
Looking ahead, it is quite clear that we shall need more and more investment. We believe in expansion. In our submission to the National Economic Development Council we postulated that investment would rise to more than £200 million in 1966–67, most of which, of course, would go on the expansion of the telephone service. I see the coming twelve months as the first in a phase of extensive build-up in the telephone service which we really must have if we are to provide for the big increase in calls and if we are to give people a telephone more or less on demand.
The position today is better than it has been for many years. Next year, we shall spend £18 million more than this year on putting in trunk and junction plant, on putting in more exchange equipment and expanding the local cable network. This is a very big job, of course, and it is necessary partly as a result of


the continuing rise in trunk calling. Part of the additional trunk circuits will be provided by radio links, and the House may be interested to know that we shall be starting on new microwave links for the distribution of the B.B.C.'s second programme, which will be integrated with the G.P.O.'s own trunk network.
We have connected about 415,000 telephones this year, and I expect next year's figures to be about 510,000. As I have said, the waiting list has fallen to 45,000. It is a fact that, for nearly 90 per cent. of the requests we receive for telephones, equipment is immediately available.

Mr. W. R. Williams: What was the waiting list last year?

Mr. Bevins: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure without notice. Speaking "off the cuff", I think that it was between 50,000 and 55,000. It has fallen to 45,000 in the current year.
The House may like to know, also, that we mean to go over to electronic exchanges rather than simple automatic exchanges as soon as we can. These exchanges have the twin advantages of giving greater speed to the subscriber and of being cheaper and more economic to house. Both the Post Office and the principal manufacturing firms feel that there exists a big potential export market for these exchanges, although, of course, we shall not have it all our own way because other countries are developing their own types of electronic exchange.
Now a few words about overseas communications. Since March, many London subscribers have been able themselves to dial Paris numbers. Within the next few days, operators in London and New York will start to dial calls direct across the Atlantic. In the autumn, London operators will be able to dial numbers in Australia. By the end of this year, another telephone cable to America will be opened, and the Pacific cable will give us, for the first time in our experience, a reliable telephone service between here and Australia and New Zealand. The first direct cable to Germany will be opened in about a year. This is the first of six new cables to be laid under the North Sea during the next few years. We hope that subscribers will be able to get their own calls to most parts of Western Europe.
This leads me to the exciting business of satellite communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) is to open a debate on this subject on Friday of this week, I believe, I do not wish to anticipate that debate in any way, but there are some elementary facts concerning the Post Office in this connection which are worth stating quite shortly this evening.
It is now quite firmly established by the success of Telstar and Relay that telecommunications through satellites are technically feasible. The Post Office held a conference on this subject in London last spring, with representatives from most of the Commonwealth countries. Since then we have had exploratory discussions at official level with the American Administration and also the Administrations of most of the Western European countries.
The first question, I think, that interests the House is this: why do we need satellite communications at all? It is because, of course, of the very rapid increase in international telephoning and the increased capacity that is required to handle it. At present, so far as one can judge, this can probably be provided more cheaply by satellite than by cable. This is not to say that submarine cables are becoming obsolete, or will become obsolete in the near future. Indeed, it is the view both of the Americans and my specialists within the Post Office that both submarine cables and satellites will be complementary systems for many years to come.
The second question—and, I confess, perhaps the most difficult—is how far international co-operation ought to extend in this field. There are those who say that because the United States of America is more advanced than other nations, then the United States is bound to take the leading part in the development of a world system. There are others who feel strongly and with deep conviction that our country ought to take its own initiative in co-operation with the Commonwealth. There is yet a third school which says that the initiative ought to be linked not only with the Commonwealth, but also with the countries of Western Europe.
Whichever of these schools of thought is right—I have no doubt that there will be much argument about this later this


week—there is, nevertheless, one consilderation which none of us can afford to ignore. The idea that Britain can "go it alone" without any co-operation from other nations is wholly unrealistic, because we simply cannot establish a satellite system unless others are prepared to put down ground stations on their own territories and are also prepared to put traffic over the system.
Nor must we turn a blind eye to the hard reality that at present—I am not speculating about the future—80 per cent. of the inter-continental traffic passes across the Atlantic Ocean between North America and Europe and this is likely to continue for many years to come.
That leads me to the conclusion that if a satellite system is to pay it must draw to a certain extent—I put it no higher than that—on trans-Atlantic traffic. I want to make very clear to the House that the Post Office, at all levels, political, administrative and scientific, has been putting a great deal of work into the problems associated with all this. It is certainly our ambition to take an important part in these exciting developments in the future.

Mr. William Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the cost to the Post Office of this experiment in research in space communications during the coming financial year?

Mr. Bevins: The amount of money which at present is allocated for Post Office research as such is between £1 million and £2 million. That does not cover all the research upon which the Government have decided to embark.
In conclusion, may I say that I hope that the Post Office is seen more and more by our customers, by the public at large, and by the House of Commons as an organisation which is in tune with the times and which is seeking to be modern and efficient in the interests of the public and the nation.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I congratulate the Postmaster-General upon a very substantial speech which he put across with great clarity. The fact that I do not agree with everything he said should not detract

from my approbation of some of the things that he said. I do not know whether I can promise to be as brief as the right hon. Gentleman, because it is much easier to start throwing bricks than it is to start building an edifice, but I hope to help in the building by constructive criticism.
I should like to deal with one or two points that have emerged from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) to deal with matters arising out of the statement of last week and to ask for any more information that may be required on it. I shall also leave it to him to deal in the main with bulk agreements, satellite communications and so on. There are, however, one or two points which I think I ought to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
We know that wages and conditions have improved substantially in the Post Office, as everywhere else. One would have to be very stupid indeed not to appreciate and acknowledge that. But I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that since the Government have been in power, the bulk of the wage increases have been to meet the very steady and substantial rise in the cost of living. There can be no doubt that this is a major contributory factor. Any increase for value of work forms rather a small proportion of the increase. The point that I am making is that the substantial increases have been due to the rising cost of living. We are not responsible for that. The Government are, to a point, responsible for it.
Another point that I want to deal with is the deterioration, the decrease, in a good deal of work concerning the Post Office. This again is a national question, and it is due to the fact that the economy has not been running at top gear. We on this side of the House have been complaining for many years that the Government have not been expanding the national potential to the degree that they ought to have done, with the result that the Post Office, like other industries, has suffered. An additional reason is the uncertainty about the Common Market and what has happened at Brussels. That has had quite a serious effect on Post Office development in the same way that it has had quite a substantial effect upon development in that part of Lancashire which the right hon. Gentleman and I are


both privileged to represent. I think that I have said enough about the deterioration in work, but I shall be dealing with some other aspects of it later.
I was glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman made the point that there is real need seriously to consider the expansion of Post Office business. He will not be surprised if later I chide him for losing certain opportunities to create new services and to expand other services in order to do exactly what he is doing now. I and, I think, most of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the better way to develop the Post Office is to expand the service rather than to make these continuous increases in charges. That is our basic view, and we hope that the Postmaster-General will pay serious attention to it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a number of projects which he has introduced recently in an effort to expand the services. I think that he will agree that, when we look at the general overall work of the Post Office, these are very small projects. If the Post Office is to expand, we shall have to tackle the matter in a much bigger way. I shall refer to that later.
I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman has decided substantially to increase investment. I think that the figure concerned is about £23 million. That is a substantial sum, and I should like later to relate it to what the National Economic Development Council feels is the response necessary from the Post Office in order to meet the general national increase of 4 per cent. that is required to get the country's standards on a reasonable level.
I am glad to hear that everyone in the Post Office—those on the political side, those concerned with the administration, the scientists and everyone else—has come to the conclusion that the development of satellite communications is inevitable. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind very much if I chide him in this respect. About four or five years ago—perhaps it is less than that—I was trying to get statements about how fast and in what direction the Post Office was going in the development of satellites. The Minister said that we had not got to that stage and that he did not know that there was anything in this. I am glad that in 1963 he shares the view

which some of us held in about 1958 on the possibilities of satellite communications. I do not pretend to speak for my party here—this is off the cuff in reply to some of the points which the Postmaster-General made—but my view is that we should have been starting on the basis of a Commonwealth telecommunications system closely associated with the United States, because of the amount of inter-continental traffic involved. However, if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to extend the scope and to have other European nations participating, I do not quibble about that. As I say, I do not speak officially on this matter, because we on this side have not had the opportunity to discuss it.
I should like to be associated with the tribute which the Postmaster-General paid to the Post Office staff, especially to those on the outdoor services, for the magnificent way in which they tackled the very hard and onerous duties which the severe winter imposed on them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In view of the unprecedented weather which we have had since about December of last year, it is almost miraculous that the lines of communication have been kept open and the transport of mails has been carried out with very little interruption. Men and women have shown great courage and great endurance in trying to meet their obligations to the State and to the Post Office.
May I say this in appreciation of the Postmaster-General? I am most grateful to him for breaking away from the tradition of expressing his approbation and appreciation only in official journals and in the old, official jargon and for publishing his congratulations, thanks and appreciation in the national newspaper, The Times. That was worthy of the occasion and of the right hon. Gentleman.
We always have statements which are full of hope, optimism and promises. Some of our hopes are fulfilled; others remain unfulfilled. There is an obligation on me, speaking from this side of the House, to draw attention to some of the failures in reaching the objectives which we had in mind. To do that, I must briefly analyse the forecasts and prophecies in the White Paper of 1962–63 and the achievements. I promise the Postmaster-General that I shall not go back as far as 1951–52 in order to choose grounds which may be favourable for


comparisons. I shall be strictly fair and accurate and merely take 1962–63 and 1963–64. I then propose to comment briefly on the White Paper dealing with 1963–64 and finally to say a few words about the statement made last week by the right hon. Gentleman and about the new tariffs which he proposes.
I do not think there is any need for me to remind hon. Members that no one has defended the Post Office more stubbornly, more vigorously and most persistently than I have done since 1945. This is because of my long experience of the Post Office and of my personal pride in its achievements over many years and because its varied facilities have been a contributory factor in developing the social lives of our people.
I have always believed that the British Post Office is unchallengeably the best in the world, and I hope that that is still the case today. I have said that in this House before, and I hope it is right that I should say it again. With the coming of automation and mechanisation, we expected that there would be still greater efficiency, still greater progress and still greater expansion. In many directions, our expectations have been fulfilled, but I am bound to confess—and I do not do so with any pleasure; I have said this outside to some people—that in some directions the service is not quite so good and is inclined to be slipping.
Take the letter and parcel post services. I should not care to try to defend a delay of two days in the delivery of letters from, say, Oxford or Warwickshire to the Home Counties. I do not think it would be reasonable to try to defend a service of that sort. Many hon. Members on both sides come and discuss these matters with me from time to time, and I should find it very difficult, even with my background, to defend a service like that.
Nor could I possibly defend a parcel post system in which there is a delay of three or four days in the delivery of parcels. We must be very fair and practical in our approach to these questions. I am aware that there are factors over which the right hon. Gentleman and the Administration have no control. I believe that railway electrification and reorganisation and the review which is being conducted are all major contribu-

tory factors. My point, however, is that, whatever the causes, we cannot stand for a postal service which is deteriorating to that extent. Whoever is responsible for the fault, we must get down to rock bottom to ensure that the causes are removed.
There are, however, other causes of failure over which the Administration and the Postmaster-General have control. I refer to services like telegrams, money orders, telegraph money orders, registration and the cash on delivery services, all of which seem to be contracting. What is much more serious is that they seem to be allowed to contract. It looks to me as if, in some cases, the Post Office is quite willing to see them contract.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that many of these services have never shown a profit almost since their introduction. Strangely enough, nobody expected them to show a marked profit. They were regarded as the trimmings of a big public service which were essential and desirable on their own merit. Whether they actually contributed to the profit of the Post Office, they were services that, we felt, should be carried on. They were services which, in the main, appealed to and catered for the requirements of ordinary people who do not have the financial facilities that a small proportion of the community possesses. In my opinion, the Post Office must seriously reconsider its approach to these matters and see what it can do.
I sincerely asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider again whether it is one of his functions to ensure that about 60 or 70 per cent. of the financing of fixed investment should come out of day-to-day revenue. I regard that as too high a proportion. I do not know whether I have understood this correctly, but it may be that by the terms of the White Paper the figure is being reduced to 55 per cent. If that is so, I am not prepared to argue that it is unreasonable. I hope, however, that the Postmaster-General will make it a matter of study to ensure that the social obligations of the Post Office to the people are such that profit is not the paramount consideration and that the social needs of the people are given their rightful place.
The White Paper, Post Office Prospects 1963–64, makes interesting reading. It is


full of hope and optimism, as other White Papers have been, and yet, somehow, I have to approach it in the knowledge that my enthusiasm and credence are somewhat clouded by the acid test of how past forecasts and estimates have matched up to achievements.
Because of the time factor, I shall deal with only a few matters. I must, however, refer to the expansion of the telephone service, S.T.D. development, the number of exchange connections which have been made, the waiting lists and waiting periods for connection, and new buildings and programmes, on both the postal and the telecommunications sides. I do not think that the progress in these directions has been anything like as speedy or as good as some of us expected.
Let us consider, for example, exchange connections. In the White Paper Post Office Prospects 1961–62, it was estimated that the increase in the number of exchange connections would be about 220,000, and for the current year, 1962–63, the estimate was about 200,000. The present White Paper shows, however, that by 1st April, 1963, the increase will be about 132,000, or 68,000 below the estimate given in the previous White Paper. There may be good reasons for this, but they are not forthcoming in any of the White Papers. Therefore, we must find out something about them. In replying to the debate, the Assistant Postmaster-General may wish to say something about the causes of these discrepancies.
My next point, which is a corollary of the one I have just made, is that the failure to reach what we call the physical targets has meant that the financial surplus also has been lower than was estimated. The estimated financial surplus for this year was £17 million on telecommunications alone and £34 million on the combined revenue account for the Post Office service as a whole. We see from the White Paper, however, that the figure has come down from £34 million to £9 million.
I said the other day, when questioning the right hon. Gentleman on his statement, that this was a disturbing factor. I thought that I had made my point, although I rather worried you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for having

developed it at length. It is, however, a serious matter that we are down to £9 million from an estimated £34 million.
I should like to deal briefly with the estimated speed at which subscriber trunk dialling was to be introduced and the number of local calls that were expected. In both cases, the estimates have proved unreliable. I say this deliberately, and I am willing to be corrected, but it seems to me that the Post Office is failing to maintain the planned rate of growth of S.T.D.
The original plan provided that one-quarter of all telephones should have S.T.D. facilities by the end of March, 1962, and that 40 per cent. of all telephones would have them a year later. It was estimated that by March, 1962, we would have about 300 exchanges serving 11 million subscribers. By the end of March, 1962, however, the number of these exchanges was only 250, representing an increase, not of 25 per cent., but of 18 per cent. My parting word on S.T.D. is that, in short, the programme is running exactly a year behind schedule. We are entitled to an explanation of this.
I had intended to deal with the question of the waiting lists but possibly this will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley. As to the sharing of lines, however, I understand that over I million subscribers still have shared lines. The bulk of them would be very pleased if they were able to get private lines of their own. To put it mildly, it seems to me that in the past 12 months, there has been no substantial progress in regard to the number of people who are waiting for telephones. According to my information, the number who have been waiting for two years has increased from 2,996 to 3,280.
I leave that and come to my third general observation. This is not put forward in an ultra critical sense at all. It is part of my constructive approach to this debate today. I ask myself and I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. Is there any lack of drive and enterprise in going after new traffic? In other words, when some of the old seams seem to be played out, is the right hon. Gentleman as the political head of the administration going out to find new seams? I listened with great interest to his opening statement when he


referred to some of the small services, but I want something very much bigger than that.
The Postmaster-General rather surprised me, as, I am sure, he surprised my hon. Friends, when he gave us the actual figures of the decrease in the pools traffic in the last twelve months. I knew it had gone down, but I am surprised to learn it has gone down to the extent the right hon. Gentleman indicated today. If that is so, here is a decline of what has been one of the biggest revenue sources on the postal side of the Post Office in the last twenty-five years. There is a serious weakness coming. Not that I am in favour of the pools as such. The right hon. Gentleman knows my views about that, but I happened to be in charge of the trade union side in Liverpool when the pools traffic started and I was in on the ground floor and I know something about it, and I know that it has contributed tremendously to the revenues of the Post Office during the last twenty-five years. If that is going, we cannot afford to sit on the touchline watching it go without making an effort to get something in its place.
I am going to suggest something very seriously. I am sure that my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the other side of the House will have noticed the number of men and women, scores of them, who are tramping the streets every day delivering stuff which in my young days the Post Office exclusively delivered—bills, notices, rates notices from local authorities, notices from private commercial firms, from insurance firms, and all the rest. They are all making use of this form of delivery. Why should the Post Office allow all this business to go away from it without a real fight and without a real effort? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, will he seriously consider whether we can do something to open a new seam there?
The Postmaster-General tells us we are losing money on money orders, telegraph money orders, registration services and so on. Now he is missing a grand opportunity, in my opinion, as I said in an Adjournment debate, of developing a new service which has been a great success an the Continent and which is proving financially sound and is being developed on the Continent. I refer to the Giro system. I hope the right hon. Gentleman

will listen to me about this. I hope he will pay attention to this, because I am not the only one who believes in the possibilities and the potentialities of this system. I have had more correspondence about the reply given by his hon. Friend in my Adjournment debate about this than on almost any other subject—apart from overseas rates.
There is one fellow—I am not going to give the House his name—who wants to set up an organisation in support of the Giro system. He will be charging for membership. The House may be interested to know that I was invited to become its first president. I am not falling for that. Nevertheless, I feel quite sure that it is about time we took this in earnest. Some of my old colleagues thought the reply of the Assistant Postmaster-General—I do not blame him, because he was thrown into the pool that night—was rather cynically dismissing it. The general view is, and I repeat it, that this is a sell-out on the part of the Government to the joint stock banks, and that if the banks had not had already plenty of time to formulate their own policy the thing would have been naturally devolving on the Post Office, as something which could better be worked by the Post Office than any other of the finance houses in this country. We have agencies in every little village, in every town, and we are essentially well qualified to deal with this.
There is one further question I want to ask in these general observations. What plans has the Postmaster-General and the administration in mind in regard to the parcels post traffic? It is going down all the time, and yet there is plenty of parcels post traffic to be had if we go about it in the right way. The Postmaster-General proposes to increase the charges here also. I am certain that is not the right way. I am rather surprised that, just at the time we have been discussing Statutory Instruments in this House and extending the weight of parcels up to 22 lb., trying to recover some of the traffic which has been diverted to the railways and to road transport, just at that time when I thought we were in earnest in trying to recover some of that traffic, I find he is putting a spoke in the wheel straightaway by increasing the charges in certain of the ranges of the parcels post.
There is wanted in the Post Office now a drive similar to that in the early 'thirties when we had imperial cables and the Post Office staff went out in the spirit of dedicated salesmanship to make that imperial cables system the success which it turned out to be. Then we took seriously enough the effect of constant publicity, constant advertising. I am rather glad the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind and that the Post Office has changed its mind on the question of advertising. A few years ago they would not look at it. One Assistant Postmaster-General said that the Post Office was not a suitable business in which to advertise, but his own study group which went to the United States of America came back enthusiastically of the opinion that the Post Office here ought to be changing its ideas and advertising its goods and services.
I leave that point because I should just like to have a look at Post Office Prospects for 1963–64. On the postal side, I note, there is going to be some development in connection with buildings. I am gad to note that that progress is to be made. I am not in a position to assess whether it is sufficient or whether it is all that the Post Office is capable of doing, but it is a step in the right direction, and so far as it is that, it has my support.
Another paragraph in the White Paper deals with mechanisation. I do not know whether I am speaking for my hon. and right hon. Friends on this. This is just thinking aloud from my experience, but here we are talking about mechanisation, more advanced models, trials of new machines and so on. I consider and agree that it is essential that the right sort of finished product should be found, and that research and trials and pilot schemes are necessary for this purpose. In 1936 I was watching a transformer sorting machine in Brighton. I think it was 1936. Perhaps it was 1935. However, somewhere about that time we were looking at a transformer sorting machine in Brighton. I have looked at scores of machines of all sorts since then in many offices. I am grateful for the facilities given me to see these great developments. But I seriously ask when

the Postmaster-General is going to make a decision about them. We are talking about expenditure on investment, and we are spending a tremendous amount of money on research and development and experimentation, and I ask these simple questions, thinking out loud: when do we call it a day? When do the experiments and pilot schemes emerge into a nationally adopted system of letter sortation and parcel treatment and the rest?" I often wonder whether in these schemes of research and experimentation the best is not becoming the enemy of the very good. I leave that point there because I am not in the position to deal with it very much further.
Another paragraph in the White Paper which intrigues me is that dealing with the East Anglia experiment. I was under the impression—one of my hon. riends from Norfolk has been talking to me about it for a while—that the experiment has been under way for some time. But I find that it has not started. One cannot deal with modern transport problems by giving notice in 1962 that one is to have an experiment if it is then to be discovered in 1964 that nothing happened beyond the preparation or assembly of blueprints, papers, graphs and ideas. It is about time we knew something more about the experiment.
We are face to face with a much bigger issue than the East Anglia experiment, and that is what the Post Office is to do about the general delivery and transportation of its mails when Dr. Beeching has finished with the railways. Because of the way Dr. Beeching and the Minister of Transport are rushing into these matters, we must have something from the Post. Office very soon about the alternative methods to be adopted. Branch lines are being closed, we are using diesel trains which have nothing like the accommadotion neccessary for post office mail bags and Dr. Beeching is concentrating on main lines and profitable lines. What will the Post Office do in the face of all this? My view is that unless it has some scheme well in hand we shall have about a year of delay, and the result of that will be that the Post Office will come under the hammer, as the railways have done, when the cause is not really of its own making and merely because it has been slow in trying to deal with the problem.
I understand—I think the Postmaster-General himself told me—that there is a high-level joint committee of the British Transport Commission and the Posit Office dealing with this matter. It has been sitting for a very long time now, and yet, as far I can see, there is no record in the reports we are getting of anything substantial having been done.
I turn to the Postmaster-General's recent statement and the tariffs. I am glad to note that capital expenditure is to be increased from £133 million in the current year to £156 million in 1963–64. I agree with him that this is essential for improved public services and for helping to maintain a high level of employment in the industries which supply the Post Office, and I also agree that these developments must proceed with speed and purpose if we are to give any substantial and timely aid to the development areas. At the moment we have more than 700,000 people unemployed. I know that in the light industries in my area of Manchester there are redundancies, short time working and no overtime. We are not making use of people available in Scotland, the North-East and elsewhere by giving them work which the Post Office ought urgently to be carrying out. We are losing opportunities in that skilled people are available but work is not provided for them. I sincerely hope that the Postmaster-General will get on with this as quickly as possible.
I am glad that the borrowings from the Treasury are to be doubled. I assume—I think that the Postmaster-General has more or less assured me on this point—that this makes a contribution of about 55 per cent. from Post Office revenues. In the light of the increase of £23 million in capital investment, which is substantial by any standard, I almost hesitate to press that the sum is inadequate. I do not know whether I shall be able to prove that, but I have to try, and I do so by praying in aid the first Report of the N.E.D.C.
Table 93 of that Report, which deals with fixed investment, shows that the present plans of the Post Office reach a total of £148·3 million in 1963–64 and £185·4 million in 1966–67. It is there stated that if we are to have an increase of 4 per cent. in national effort, the

£148·3 million should be £151·8 million and the £185·4 million should be £202·9 million. In other words, the N.E.D.C. is in effect saying to the Post Office "If you are to be a suitable vehicle to bear the new weight of communications which can flow from a 4 per cent. increase in national effort, you must spend more money on your fixed investment".
What emerges from Table 94 in that Report is "If you are to spend more money, you must get more staff, and there is no doubt that a substantial increase in staff will be required." Today one cannot just get staff by asking for them. With his experience in industry, the Assistant Postmaster-General will know that if the Post Office is to get the skilled technicians required for the development and expansion of the telephone service in particular, it will have to recruit and train them on an unprecedented scale. All I ask at this point is whether he will comment on the different targets set by the Post Office and the N.E.D.C. and whether he will recommend to his right hon. Friend that the trade unions concerned with the matter of recruitment and training should be brought into very early consultation with him on this subject.
I turn now to the Postmaster-General's proposals in regard to tariffs. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for taking such a long time, but I have had many representations made to me from many quarters, and I was not sure how many hon. Members would be here to put the points, and so I have taken upon myself the obligation of trying to ventilate some of them here today.
The Postmaster General's proposal that the charge for a local telephone call should be 2d. for six minutes instead of for three is a step in the right direction. However, I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that there has been an outcry about the basic charges for the new S.T.D. service. The question is whether the time of six minutes is adequate. I do not think that housewives will regard it as reasonable. Housewives would reckon on eternity as being a reasonable time to be on the phone. We have to find a reasonable compromise between time and eternity, and perhaps eight or ten minutes would be better.
I have dealt with the increases in the parcel post and the registration fee, and I now come to a matter upon which I have had a great deal of correspondence in the last few days, and no doubt other hon. Members have had the same experience. I refer to the proposed increases in the overseas printed matter rates. When I read the original statement of the proposed increases, it did not dawn on me that there was anything wrong with them, but I am now satisfied that there is a strong case for reconsideration of this decision.
I have had a letter, dated 20th March, from the Periodical Proprietors' Association which says:
A most serious consequence is the effect on circulation of British general, trade, technical business and specialised publications abroad. Because of their very great potentiality to further the export trade of this country, the drive to increase overseas circulation of these journals is an established feature of government policy and publishers have been exhorted to co-operate in their schemes to increase overseas circulation even in unprofitable territories; they have given their unstinted support.
This is a case not only for the Postmaster-General but for the Government as a whole to consider, and it should be referred to Cabinet level, or at least to a Minister responsible for more than one Government Department.
For two years the Board of Trade has been exhorting and encouraging all these firms and businesses to try to portray our way of life and our culture to people in all parts of the world. I have a copy of a statement from no less a person than the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), not merely exhorting people to do this sort of thing, but placing the agency of his Overseas Information Service at their disposal. The President of the Board of Trade has been doing his utmost through his agencies and by co-operation with these firms.
Publishers have had to meet competition from overseas publishers who in many instances enjoy' cheaper overseas rates. This increased levy at a time when there is a need for an all-out drive to increase exports is incomprehensible to the publishers in membership of this Association and no doubt to the vast number of manufacturers who know the value of a specialised trade and technical journal as a shop window for their goods.

I ask the Government seriously to consider whether, although they may gain a few £s, they will not lose more in prestige and influence and in the ability to portray our way of life and our business requirements, and I ask them seriously to consider the new charges.
The present weekly overseas charge of 10½d. is to be increased to 1s. 3½d., weekly increase of 5d. per copy. The annual rate is to go up from 45s. 6d. to 67s. 2d., an annual increase of 21s. 8d. The increase for publications going to Canada is 1s. 2d. per copy, from 1½d. to 1s. 312d. and for some sorts of journals the annual increase is 60s. 8d., from 6s. 6d. to 67s. 2d. Some important journals are affected, including the Engineer, Engineering, Electronic Engineer, British Rate and Data, Mechanical Handling, The Motor Ship, British Plastics, Shipbuilder. The net result will be that the Americans will take over the Canadian market, for their production costs are lower, and if our publishers are penalised to the extent foreshadowed by the proposed increase, they might as well say, "Good-bye" to the Canadian market.
The other increase from 3d. to 9d. in the S.T.D. ranges is psychologically bad, as is the increase in the parcel post rate. We have been trying to sell the S. C.D. system to telephone subscribers for the better part of 25 years. They were coming to understand that the result of all the developments which had taken place would be a cheaper telephone service. Many people had not accepted that view and were finding that they were paying more for their telephone calls, that the new system was more costly.
When we have to deal with changes from 17½ to 18 seconds, the complexity of the accountancy is such that the ordinary person feels that the Post Office is trying to blind him with science. Let the Postmaster-General not be guilty of bad timing. Let the scheme get under way. Let the original charges, plus the concession to six minutes, be continued. Let the scheme take its own weight, I am sure that it will produce the goods in the long run. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to muck about with it at the very moment when people are beginning to understand what it all means.
Finally, and I apologise for having spoken for so long, I come to the decision


to increase the minimum charge for telegrams from 3s. to 5s. The Postmaster-General must have been almost ashamed to put that to the House, because all he said in his statement was that there would be an increase from 3d. to 5d. per word. There was nothing in his statement about the basic minimum charge for a telegram going up from 3s. to 5s. This is bordering on dishonesty. It is bordering on not being fair to the House.
If the right hon. Gentleman was going to refer to the telegraphic service at all, he should have made it clear that not only was the rate per word to go up from 3d. to 5d., but that the basic minimum charge was to rise from 3s. to 5s. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to cut the throat of this service, which is very dear to me? I have spent the happiest years of my life in it. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to cut its throat, I ask him to do it properly and not play with it like this, because this is the only telecommunications service available to millions of people in this country who cannot afford to pay these high rates.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider where he is going, because there is another point which we ought to consider. If there were a national emergency again, this House and the Post Office would rue the day when they so depleted the telegraphic side of the Post Office that it was not able to fulfil its responsibilities in the dangerous and evil times that would then exist.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and my hon. Friend's predecessor on the buoyant picture which the Post Office presents for 1963–64. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that this is one nationalised service which runs efficiently, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree with the congratulations which have been offered to the postal services for the way in which they carried on during the recent spell of unprecedented cold weather.
My words of congratulation are rather tinged with dismay, because I have here the White Paper relating to the increases in Post Office tariffs and this evening I want to touch on one aspect of those

increases, namely, their effect on our export trade. I refer in particular to overseas telegrams—it is proposed to raise the charge by 30 per cent.—to the proposed increase for printed papers, and to the overseas parcels rate which it is proposed to increase by 15 per cent.
Each of those three categories of Post Office business is in its own way essential to the well-being of our export trade. Let us consider first the printed paper rate. Most firms send advertisement literature abroad to advertise their goods. Dealing next with the parcel post, many firms, especially those dealing with bulk orders, send samples abroad, and I shall explain in a moment how a number of firms endeavour to carry on their export trade, which is substantial, by parcel post only. Thirdly, the sending of telegrams and cables overseas is an essential part of the complicated mechanism of any effective export network.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), who has had many years' experience of this service, said that the Post Office was a service of which he was very proud and that it was the best in the world. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, but I have one proviso to that statement. Our postal services are the best in the world, but they do not provide the best facilities for customers who wish to export by parcel post.
The hon. Member said that the maximum weight which could go abroad by parcel post was 22 lb. I think that the figure is actually 15 lb.

Mr. W. R. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House two or three weeks ago when we were dealing with the Statutory Instrument dealing with this point, he would have realised that sanction had been given for the weight to be increased to 22 lb.

Mr. Farr: I was not aware of that. I understood that the figure I gave was correct, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
About two years ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General the question of the maximum size of parcels being sent abroad. There are a number of countries from which it is possible to export by parcel and send parcels of a much larger size than we are able to export. For instance, our


maximum weight is 22 lb. The maximum dimensions, and we work on the basis of the length and girth combined, is 72 ins. The Germans have a maximum weight of 20 kilograms, and a maximum size of 2 metres in length and 2 metres in width.
Perhaps I might give the House an example of the adverse effect this limitation on size is having on our export trade. Although it may not be known to many hon. Members, there is in this country the largest drum manufacturer in Europe. This firm exports about 65 per cent. of its total products, to a total value of over £250,000. It has the distinction of supplying not only the Royal Marines with its drums, but the United States Marines, and, to complete the hat trick, it supplies the Bolshoi Ballet Company with its drums.
This firm wrote to me pointing out the severe disadvantage it is suffering. The letter reads:
Stockists of our products abroad need to give their customers a quick service, and this can only be done by sending from England through the parcel post services, which eliminates the time-consuming documentation, and delays that are part of the usual shipping procedure.
There are just hundreds of customers abroad who buy through the 'no-trouble' postal method, where the postman collects the import duty at the time of delivery.
It goes on to say that the Germans and Japanese are using this system and have built up big businesses in the U.S.A.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an answer to this point. I first raised it two years ago. I would not care to hazard a guess as to the amount of export business that has been lost—not by this firm alone but by hundreds of firms who indulge in export trade by parcel post. The Germans and Japanese can export parcels of a much greater size and weight than we can, and we are losing trade to them. Incidentally, I should like to know if it would be possible for the Post Office, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to get together in order to try to work out an airmail parcel post service.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: We all agree that the Post Office is a shining example of nationalised industry, and that it performs a public service which everybody needs. Indeed, it supplies

some of the basic necessities of life. It must therefore be provided, maintained and financed by the State. I was interested to note that in two years' time we shall probably have devoted no less a sum than £1,000 million to capital investment in the Post Office. That represents a substantial proportion of the National Debt, but I doubt whether anybody would begrudge it, because it is recognised as correct that the capital investment of the Post Office should be provided mainly by the Exchequer out of general public borrowing and should not be raised at the expense of the consumers of the service.
Nevertheless, we now find that we are beginning to depart from that very important principle. Under the present Government we have a new approach to public services, which lays down that above all they must be commercial propositions, paying their way and raising finance from the consumers for their public investment. We are beginning to find that instead of thinking in terms of a general service, provided to meet the needs of all the people on a reasonable and inexpensive basis, the Post Office is now thinking in terms of making each branch of its service pay its way, and make some contribution towards capital investment.
If this had been the approach of Rowland Hill we would never have had a Penny Post. We cannot deal with these public matters in the same way that a bookmaker's clerk deals with his employer's affairs. We must think in terms of spreading costs over the service as a whole and drawing in revenue in accordance not only with the cost of each service but with people's ability to pay. It is because that principle has been completely abandoned in the new scale of charges which the Postmaster-General has brought forward that I oppose them. I wish it were possible to oppose them by way of a Division.
I regard the increased charge for inland telegrams as a scandal. There will be an increase of 66⅔ per cent. in the charge for a service which is of importance to millions of people, above all at times of emergency. The Postmaster-General says that the charge is being increased because this service is a burden on Post Office revenue. In order to save £1¼ million a year millions of ordinary people who


have no telephones in their homes—and that is the majority of people—will be put to great expense when they want to deal urgently with those little problems that arise from time to time.
In a Written Reply to a Question I put down to the Postmaster-General today—asking what would have been the cost of reducing the charge for this service from 3d. a word to 2d. a word with a minimum of 2s.—the right hon. Gentleman said:
I estimate that income would he reduced by £0·6 million, and that the loss on the service would increase to more than £4 million.
That is a paltry sum of money, compared with the amounts which the right hon. Gentleman is apparently prepared simultaneously to give away to people who like to indulge in long telephone calls. He told us that the cost of increasing the time limit—or the charge unit, as it is called—of the S.T.D. local call from three to six minutes would be £3½ million. That is nearly double the present loss on the inland telegram service, and not much more than what the loss would be if the charge for inland telegrams were reduced to 2d. a word with a minimum of 2s.
It is all very well that middle-class housewives who want to ring up their relatives and have a gossip should now be able to do so for six minutes instead of only three minutes for 2d. It is all very well that they should be able to ring up their grocers and place their orders for delivery and find that if they cannot say all that they want to in three minutes they will be able to speak for six minutes for 2d. instead of paying 4d. But has it ever occurred to the Postmaster-General that the majority of our people are not middle-class housewives with telephones in their own homes? The majority have no telephones. When they want to get goods from the grocer they have to go to him themselves, and have to pay, perhaps, 4d. in bus fares each way. In other words, although the working-class housewife may spend as much as 8d. in getting her goods from the grocers, middle-class housewives will now be able to order their goods by telephone for a charge of 2d.
A much more serious matter is the fact that people will now have to pay far more to use the telegram service. I

think of the family visits paid by people in my constituency at week-ends. A young married couple may visit their parents on Saturday or Sunday afternoon. It may be that one day the baby has a cold, or there is some other minor crisis, and their only means of urgent communication with their relatives is by telegram. Even though there may be a telephone kiosk at the corner of their street they cannot make use of it, because their relatives do not have a telephone.
My constituency is not unusual in this respect. There may be a higher proportion of working-class population among the electors, but the constituency is fairly typical and it is possible to find whole streets of houses without a telephone in any house. Most of the people cannot afford a telephone, even though they may have a washing machine, which they have acquired because they get a return from a washing machine which they do not get from a telephone. We all wish to see a substantial expansion of the telephone service, and we look forward to the day when every home in the country will be connected by telephone. But that day is a long way ahead. In the meantime, we must recognise the facts of life and appreciate that the majority of working-class people, and retired people who have to live on small fixed incomes, cannot afford a telephone. The telegram service is vital to them in an emergency, and so I appeal to the Assistant Postmaster-General to tell his right hon. Friend that this matter must be looked at again from the point of view of social justice rather than of narrow pettifogging finance.
There is another aspect of the public services performed by the Post Office on which more money should be spent even though less revenue may be derived from them. I refer to those ancillary services which the Post Office is able to perform extremely well because of its many agencies throughout the country. This is particularly the case regarding the provision of information about where to apply for National Assistance and similar information, and, above all, the paying of pensions and family allowances. I am appalled at the queues one finds in post offices on Fridays when people have to wait for a long time in order to get their small pensions or family allowances. An increase in staff is necessary to deal with this work.
Only today I received a letter from the clerk to the Parish Council of Selsdon, in my constituency. He has been trying to arrange for a shopkeeper who is licensed to sell postage stamps to be allowed to operate a sub-post office so that pensions and family allowances may be paid to recipients who live in the district. This has been refused because there are other post offices within a distance of two miles or less. I am told that this decision represents the policy of the Post Office and that old-age pensioners, widowers and others are expected to walk three or four miles, or pay bus fares of up to a 1s. return, in order to collect their pensions every week. Is this really the case? Are we putting people to this kind of expense so that they may draw a small and often inadequate pension? If so, I think that it is time the Post Office looked at the matter again and increased services in areas where they are needed—not so that the Post Office may get a little additional revenue but in order to satisfy the needs of the ordinary people, which is what the Post Office primarily exists to do.

7.18 p. m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I contgratulate my right hon. Friend on the first-class report which he has given the House and the indication of progress and imagination revealed in a picture of the British Post Office, which has kept up with the rest of the world in scientific advances as well as with the every day main street affairs of British towns.
I wish particularly to welcome S.T.D., about which there has been a change of attitude since a year ago when it was regarded as a bogy designed to increase telephone bills. Now people ask when they will be connected to the system. I ask that some less terrible noise be thought of to replace the frenetic squeaks at the beginning of a S.T.D. call from a call box. I am told by doctors that hearing a telephone bell when no bell is ringing is a fairly common form of mental illness. It will be only a matter of time before people will report hearing the "burble-burble-burble" of a S.T.D. call when no call is being made. Surely a better noise could be used than this extremely unpleasant one.
I have had a large number of letters and representations from my constituency

about the parcel post. I apologise for not being present to hear the first part of the speech of my right hon. Friend, but I do not believe that he dealt very much with this question. This is one of the most important services supplied by the Post Office. Not long ago the predecessor of the present Assistant Postmaster-General admitted to me in answer to a Question that the parcel post was not entirely satisfactory. In my constituency people can think of much stronger language with which to describe it. They say that it is reliable only because one can always rely on a parcel taking more than a week to arrive.
I emphasise that, in speaking about complaints in relation to the parcel post, I am not referring to people like myself who live in London and complain about the time that it takes to get one's washing back from home. The parcel post is of immense importance to all commercial enterprises which are out of reach of van delivery systems such as those in London and Birmingham. Virtually all the small components which many factories need in a hurry have to be sent by post. These factories rely on the parcel post, but many of them have now given it up. Every time I travel from London to Belfast and vice versa I meet what in the newspapers are normally called "top executives" of business firms carrying a parcel. When one asks what they are carrying they say that it is a parcel they want delivered in a hurry. I also find managers and others around the air freight distribution centres waiting for parcels to come in. Firms are quite prepared to pay additional costs, but they do want the service. It is rather hard on them that the Postmaster-General has put up the cost without offering a better service when the service is not very good.
It is common for a light engineering firm to have to hold in stock 1,000 different components used for manufactured goods. The size of those stocks depends on the amount used every week, and also on the delay there is likely to be if the firm wants to replace the stock. The cost of holding stocks is being put beyond an economic level. This happens not only in light engineering but also in relation to small components of very heavy machinery.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this question to see if he can make some announcement about improving the postal services as quickly as possible. Could he not apply to the parcels post some of the enterprise which is shown in relation to Telstar and radio communications and the enterprise which put S.T.D. through so quickly? Are we always tied to British Railways for the delivery of parcels? Fifty years ago when there was a row between the Post Office and the railways the Post Office decided that it would not pay the rates which the railways charged, and throughout the Home Counties up to 1910 parcels were delivered by stagecoach. This was not a technical advance, but it showed enterprise. Perhaps there cannot be a wonderful new means of delivering parcels, but we want someone with a little drive to see that they are delivered more quickly.
As an alternative to using British Railways, there are several contractors who could carry parcels in the United Kingdom, namely, container services. Industry is using those containers more and more regularly. What industry is prepared to do Government Departments should follow. I ask the Postmaster-General to see if he can improve this service. Can he aim at a regular three-day parcel delivery throughout the United Kingdom and go on working on the problem until we get that? That could do a great deal for the more outlying parts of the country.
I believe that the Post Office has a contract with B.E.A. to take letters to Scotland and Northern Ireland every day on the last plane. The air Corporation books only a certain number of seats on the last plane until the weight of the letters going on it is known in London. Day after day one can get a seat on that plane because the Post Office has not filled its booked space. Could not the Postmaster-General make a new arrangement so that space which is not taken up by letters could be used for parcels? Perhaps in that way a 24- or a 48-hour service could be relied on. I am sure there is an opening for an internal air parcel service.
It is generally agreed that the Post Office has done a good job. S.T.D. has done a great deal to bring London much closer to the outlying parts of the United Kingdom, but at present the parcels service is falling down on the job. There

is a terriffic need to integrate the outlying parts of the United Kingdom with London and Birmingham. A better parcels service can help to do this.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I wish strongly to support the Motion, because I had something to say when the Act of 1961 passed through this House. At that time I raised a question which I want to raise again very strongly. It deals with the financial regulations of the General Post Office. On that occasion I praised the G.P.O., as I do tonight, because if there is one Department which wins my admiration, it is the G.P.O., not only on the administrative side, but on the distribution side in villages and towns.
I wish to make a plea this evening, as I did in 1961, that in his consideration of expenditure from the Post Office Fund the Postmaster-General should have regard to an application made from my constituency 33 years ago. We have been agitating all that time for a Crown post office in the town of Ashton-in-Makerfield, which has a population of approximately 20,000. On the former occasion I pleaded, as I do now, that consideration should be given to the erection and provision of a Crown post office there. Representations have been made locally and regionally. I met the former Assistant Postmaster-General and discussed the matter with that hon. Lady. She was very sympathetically inclined, but money was the question. When I have met the regional officers and the postmaster in Wigan, whose jurisdiction it comes under, they have never denied that a Crown post office is needed. The land was purchased. It has been in the possession of the G.P.O. for over 33 years, and we are still awaiting the building of a Crown post office.
Another point I stressed in 1961 was the need to improve some of our sub-offices. At the end of the row where I live there is a sub-office which is partly a grocer's shop. Believe it or not, the people who go there to draw their pensions and other entitlements have 18 ins. by 18 ins. upon which to sign forms. The old people are greatly inconvenienced, as are other people who have to sign postal orders and similar documents. The place is in a shocking state from the point of view of postal convenience. It can be improved, and I know that it will not cost too much.
I repeat the two points I want to bring out. First, a serious, genuine and honest attempt should be made by the G.P.O. to provide a Crown office in Ashton-in-Makerfield, land for which was bought 33 years ago. Secondly, some improvement should be made to the amenities offered in the sub-office to which I have referred.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not finding fault with the G.P.O. or the sub-postmasters. However, the G.P.O. does not know all these things; neither do the regional offices. I have said before—I repeat it—that some of the regional officers from Manchester should come down and see for themselves the conditions existing in post offices. Then perhaps they could make suggestions for providing better facilities at less expense. Expense is no obstacle. They could provide more facilities and better conveniences, and this should be done.
If I do nothing else, I am determined to keep the reputation of the G.P.O. at the peak at which it now stands. I know that it has its faults, failings and shortcomings, but they are not so many or so great that they cannot be overcome.
In 1961 my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) heard me plead for a Crown post office for over 20,000 people who have waited 33 years for it. We are still waiting. Nothing has been done. It is no use the Postmaster-General asking for permission to do certain things if he does not intend to do what we want done in our constituencies. I know that there are difficulties, but the land is already there. There are 6 per cent. unemployed in Ashton-in-Makerfield. If the right hon. Gentleman would give permission for the building of a Crown office, that figure could be reduced. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to give us a Crown post office. Give us better facilities in our sub-offices. If he does, he will get our support in the future as we have given it in the past so that the facilities of the G.P.O. can be improved and the standard maintained.

7.33 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I intervene to ask my right hon. Friend if, in particular, he will reconsider his decision on one item of these charges. I shall confine my remarks to this point, though there is a fair amount to be said about

it. I refer to the item an page 4 of the White Paper on Post Office Tariffs—bulk overseas rate. There is a rise of about 50 per cent. from 8½d. per 1b. to 1s. 0½d. per 1b. I want to devote my remarks to explaining what that means to the trade in which I have a minor interest, which I wish to declare, namely, the publishing trade.
The publishing trade, as I shall explain later, has a very substantial and valuable export business. No less than 50 per cent. of this business goes by this form of post, namely, by bulk post. If I may explain the background, the publishing trade's exports have been a very substantial success story since the war. In 1939, the last pre-war year, the value of books exported was £6,700,000. In 1946, the first post-war year, it was £3 million. By 1956 it had increased to £20,800,000. The most recent figure, that for 1961, is £31,738,057. This trade now constitutes about 50 per cent. of our book production as opposed to about 30 per cent. before the war.
It is not only a question of the value as such. We in the trade like to say that books are different, and they are different from the average product. It is not only their value. It is also the knowledge of British traditions and the British way of life which they spread throughout the world and which the Government in their other manifestations acknowledge by the assistance which they are at the moment giving to exports of cheap books, by the activities of the British Council, and by the promotion which is being undertaken by other Government agencies.
The trade will be seriously affected by this substantial rise of postage rates. The increase in the export trade to which I have referred has not been achieved without competition. The English-speaking world is divided into two main markets, being supplied from London, on the one hand, and New York, on the other. In London, we publishers are something of an anachronism, perhaps, but a rather pleasant type of anachronism, because we still have what we term the British Empire market, a term still in common use in the publishing world. The definition of the British Empire market is that of the original British Empire, which we maintain as our market from London, in competition with the other maintained from


New York, the American market, which is confined, as far as we can confine it, to the United States of America with Canada as a sort of in-between proposition.
Naturally our American competitors are not entirely satisfied with this distribution in these days. They are competing very heavily in the Commonwealth market, in Australia in particular, but at any rate right through what we term the British Empire market.
The competition between British and American publishers is essentially based on price. We have been helped in that we have been able to compete overseas on price with American books, and we have been helped to a substantial extent by this admittedly reasonable rate of 8½d. per lb. If my right hon. Friend's proposal goes through, however, an extra 4d. will be added to the rate and this will mean that the 4d. will have to be added to the price of every book of average size exported from this country. The average weight of a bound book costing 18s. to 20s. is 1 lb. and there are no margins whatever in the publishing trade whereby that extra 4d. can be absorbed. The present margins are extremely narrow, particularly in the export trade where it is an old custom to give an increased discount. Books are sold at a discount of 331 per cent. to booksellers in the home market, but the discount goes up to 40 per cent, and sometimes even to 50 per cent. in the overseas market.
It is obvious, therefore, that the 4d. will have to be added to the price of the book to the buyer overseas, and probably the increase in price by the time it reaches the retail customer will be 1s. Many hon. Members may deplore that, but it is something which is completely outside the control of this House. The extra price will fall on the overseas bookseller who will be forced to mark up his book accordingly. It is, therefore, on behalf of the trade and on account of the value of these exports and their nature that I ask my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to this matter.
We hear a great deal about other Government Departments doing what they can to encourage exports, but by

this increase my right hon. Friend is putting a substantial tax on this important export. I have figures showing that in other directions the Government are spending £500,000 a year to assist book exports through the cheap books scheme. My right hon. Friend's present proposal is an operation in the entirely opposite direction, and in fact the Government will be penalising themselves because many Government publications are also exported.
It is on these accounts that I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this item in particular. He should also consider the other smaller charges for the conveyance of printed matter overseas, because under these charges important promotional material is sent out. My right hon. Friend, as he may know, is up against a curious type of competition against the Post Office itself in an international trade. I have not had occasion to go into the matter, but I imagine that if I did it might pay me, even with my small firm distributing 5,000 to 6,000 catalogues to the trade throughout the world, to go to Paris or Amsterdam—even having the material printed there—and use the cheaper postage rates which are available for printed paper in those cities.
This is being done by certain American magazine publishers. I frequently receive an American magazine bearing a Dutch stamp. The publishers save substantial sums by using this method, and there is nothing to prevent British publishers and others who distribute promotional materials from doing exactly the same thing. Once they use the post for this purpose it is only another step to having the material itself printed in other countries. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the full implications of what he is doing and will be kind enough to give these matters his further consideration.

7.45 p.m.

Mir. A. V. Hilton: I am sure that the whole House was interested in the Postmaster-General's speech today and in his statement a few days ago. I should like to apologise for not having been present to hear the whole of the long-winded oration by my hon. Friend the Member


for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams). I went out to eat and we had arranged that my hon. Friend should refer to the East Anglian experiment, to which the Postmaster-General has referred on more than one occasion in the House.
I should like to know a little more about this experiment, because I represent a constituency in East Anglia and obviously the people in that area are anxious to know what it is all about. It is not that we object to being guinea pigs, but that in a couple of days' time we shall know something more about Dr. Beeching's proposals for East Anglia and particularly for Norfolk. If the guesses of a good many people are correct and if more of our branch lines and stations are to be closed, changes will have to be made in the parcels and postal services.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to give us, in reply to the debate, some information about what the Postmaster-General has in mind in this East Anglian experiment. Up to the present the postal services in East Anglia have compared pretty favourably with those in other parts of the country. Tributes have already been paid to the magnificent work done by postmen during the hard winter spell through which we have passed. In Norfolk and East Anglia we had our fair share of snow and ice, but the postal service was magnificent. Some other services might have broken down, but the postmen turned up regularly day after day. We cannot speak too highly of the services they gave in our area, and indeed throughout the country, during that difficult period.
The Postmaster-General referred in his statement two or three days ago to pending changes. As far as I can understand, there will be some slight reductions in telephone charges. These, of course, are welcome, but I was concerned that the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to increase considerably the cost of telegrams, from 3d. to 5d. a word, with a minimum charge of 5s. I represent a truly rural constituency, and I fear for many of the older people who live in my area because—and we cannot blame them for this—they simply cannot use a telephone. I know it is much cheaper to

use the telephone than to send a telegram, but they just cannot do it. Some of them did not have much education, and in some villages the telephone has not been installed for very many years. However, although these old people cannot use the telephone, they have become accustomed to sending telegrams. They can go to the post office where the assistant is so helpful; they can give their messages verbally over the counter if need be, and the assistant can make the necessary translation.
The minimum charge for sending a telegram is already 3s., which is a large cut out of an old-age pensioner's weekly budget. I am not saying that old-age pensioners send telegrams every week, but certain emergencies arise when messages have to be sent quickly, and when an old person is unable to use the telephone he resorts to sending a telegram. This increase from 3s. to a minimum of 5s. for a telegram is far too high, and I believe it will price many old people out of the market and that they will not be able to send an emergency message when the need arises.
I hope the Postmaster-General will take another look at this proposal. I quite agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) when he made a plea for elderly people living in remote areas who rely so much upon the telegram. After all, in the latter part of May we hope there will be an increase of 10s. a week in the old-age pension. If 2s. is to be added to the price of a telegram, it will make a big hole in this meagre increase.
I was interested in what was said about subscriber trunk dialling. This is, of course, a wonderful innovation. I should like to think that we shall have it in my part of Norfolk soon. I do not know whether the Assistant Postmaster-General can say when we shall have this service in rural Norfolk. I can assure him that when it comes it will be much appreciated. From time to time I talk to Members living in Scotland. They go away and then they return in a very short time and say, "I have just been speaking to my wife." They have only been away for a minute or two, but they have managed to pass their messages.

Mr. William Ross: Less than that. Two minutes is too expensive.

Mr. Hilton: Well, that is the voice of authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) represents a Scottish constituency, and he takes advantage of this innovation. The point is that these Members tell me that they have been talking to their wives and that it has cost them only a few coppers—3d. I believe.

Mr. Ross: They get only a short call for 3d.

Mr. Hilton: The point is that if old-age pensioners in my constituency want to send a message, not to Scotland, but to the next village, by telegram it is going to cost them 5s. in a few weeks time, and this increase is far too steep.
I was interested in what the Postmaster-General said about the new experiments which are taking place and the progress that is being made in laying cables which will make communication with other countries so much easier. He also said something about the development of satellite telecommunications. I agree that this is a great and exciting experiment which should be encouraged. But I also agree with a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw to the effect that the best way to make progress in the Post Office would be to expand the services rather than to increase the charges. Undoubtedly, as has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, there is a great opportunity for expansion in the parcels service, but I am sure it will not come about by increasing steeply the rates as the Postmaster-General proposes. I can never understand why profit should always be the criterion for hon. Members opposite. It is the service that matters.
One other matter to which I should like to refer is the great service rendered to the community by postmasters and sub-postmasters. I have many of them in my own area because I have something like 110 different villages and three small towns. The service that these very good servants render is well and truly appreciated, especially in the smaller villages where they are such a fund of information. Most people go to them if they want information on practically any subject.
There is one matter that concerns me regarding these men and women. I con-

sider that many of these sub-postmasters are grossly underpaid, and I hope that at some time, in the near future, in view of the splendid service that they render to the community, this matter will be looked into seriously and that the Postmaster-General will agree that, in view of their splendid service, it is time that they got the salary to which they are entitled.
I should like, in conclusion, to revert to the increase in telegram charges. This is the worst proposal contained in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I hope he will have another look at it and see whether he can make it possible for the "old faithfuls", especially those living in rural areas, still to enjoy the facility of sending a telegram.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) in his tribute to sub-postmasters. Like him, I represent a rural community where there are many of these extremely valuable public servants. I do not think I have quite so many as he has, but I have had every opportunity of watching their service to the community, and I cannot say too much for them. Like the hon. Gentleman, I express regret about the level of their remuneration.
The other day, I was horrified to learn from my right hon. Friend that more than 5,000 sub-postmasters earn less than £5 a week. My right hon. Friend told me that none actually earns less than £4 a week, but, after going into this, I find that a great many of those who earn under £5 a week have to pay staff and meet certain necessary expenses out of their miserable £5 a week or less, so that, in effect, a great many do earn less than £4 at the end of the week.
It is absolutely scandalous that any public servant nowadays should earn less than £4 or even less than £5 a week. It may be that the amount of money passing through the hands of these public servants is comparatively small, but there is a basic amount of work to be done. I have looked into the amount of work which a sub-postmaster must do, and I am quite convinced that no sub-postmaster would be over-paid if his salary were £7 a week. I regard that as


the minimum which should be paid to any of them, no matter how part-time they may be. Admittedly, they are part-time, but there is a great deal of work to be done and a great deal of responsibility is carried. In the eyes of very many people in the country today, the sub-postmasters are the visible embodiment of the Post Office. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to look into the matter very carefully and sympathetically to see what can be done to recognise the services of these men and women who serve the Post Office so well.
It is not my purpose tonight to criticise the Post Office so much as to try to help it in the very great task which it does so well. I am sorry that, inevitably, I missed the first part of the debate, but I understand that the Post Office has come in for a good many hard knocks, particularly on the subject of telegrams. I want to change the tenor of the debate and say, "Thank you very much" to the Post Office for the wonderful work it has done. In particular, I have in mind the telephone service, to which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West referred. I do not think that anyone can give it too high praise. However, miraculous though the telephone service is, and wonderful though the letter service is, too, I feel that the Post Office may today be trying to do a little too much. It seems that the modern Post Office tries to live in the tradition of the Post Office of fifty years ago when wages were low and labour was cheap. Today, it could, perhaps, by a little thought and reorganisation, give a universally good service and an especially good service where it was most needed.
This afternoon, I put into the post no fewer than 29 letters. I have considered these 29 letters carefully. Only one of them was really urgent. However, the Post Office, following its tradition, will deliver every one of those 29 letters by the first post tomorrow morning, or, at least, it will do its very best to see that that is done, in various scattered parts of the United Kingdom. I do not regard this as necessary for all these letters. It is necessary for one of them, but if two days were taken to deliver the remaining 28 no harm would be done to me, to the recipients or to anyone else.
There is at present in this country a first-class mail and a second-class mail. For some reason which I have never been able to discover, second-class mail must be unsealed. I imagine that this must a great nuisance to the sorter rather than anything else. If I send an ordinary letter, I must put it in a sealed envelope and pay the full rate of postage. The full rate of 3d. strikes me as being a very good bargain. It is certainly a very reasonable price to pay. However, for the letter which must arrive by first post tomorrow morning, I consider that a very reasonable charge would be 1s. The others could be deferred.
All the letters which go into a pillar box at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon must put an intolerable burden on the postal staff who, by superhuman effort, must sort them, convey them and deliver them early the next morning. No other business in the country could possibly work in this way. If the Post Office could deal with the bulk of non-urgent letters by deferred delivery, 3d. would certainly be extremely profitable, and it might even be able to do it for 2d. There is no need for a night shift to have to labour at great cost to deal with the mass of letters throughout the night, at a time when other people—except us—are enjoying their leisure, so that they may all be delivered first thing the next morning.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of, on the one hand, first-class express mail at an increased charge being dealt with overnight according to the tradition of the Post Office, the bulk of present first-class mail, on the other hand, being deferred and delivered within, say, two days. I do not think that anyone would suffer any harm, and the organisation of the Posit Office itself would, I believe, benefit greatly by such a system.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how dangerous is the path he is treading? It would not be welcomed in Aberdeen if, by an extension of that proposal, we had varying rates for distance.

Mr. Hendry: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he listened to what I said. I have not suggested varying rates for distance. I have suggested varying rates for speed, which


is very different. I know that, if I post a letter in this building at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, it will be delivered in the wilds of Aberdeenshire by the first post the next morning. All praise to the Post Office for doing it, but it is not necessary that a vast number of people should have to work throughout the night doing something which could very well be done the next day in ordinary business hours at vastly less cost. I believe that this is a scheme well worth consideration.
Much the same could be said of the parcels service. A great many parcels are not urgent. On the other hand, a great many parcels are urgent. I was sorry to have to complain last summer to my right hon. Friend about certain parcels of meat coming from my constituency in Aberdeenshire to London. The summer was hot, and the meat, as Aberdeenshire meat always is, was well hung before it was put into the hands of the Post Office at all. Unfortunately, some consignments of meat did not arrive in good time. There is a good deal of this business between Aberdeenshire and the south of England. By the time the meat arrived in Essex or London, or wherever it was, very often the postman did not need to do anything except guide it into the door as it moved by itself.
There could well be some sort of differentiation between urgent parcels and non-urgent parcels. I am sure that many people who have urgent parcels to send would very willingly pay a little more for express delivery if they knew that quick delivery was certain. Non-urgent parcels could, so to speak, take their time, and could go for less than the present rate. Possibly, this might be difficult to arrange in the running, of the Post Office, but my suggestions represent the thoughts of someone who is a customer and who believes that new ideas are worthy of consideration.
I use the analogy of the railways. If one sends a parcel by passenger train, one has every expectation of very prompt delivery. Transit by goods train is slow but is very much cheaper. I think that the Post Office might in its sphere think along those lines, with possible profit both to itself and to its customers.
We have heard a good deal about telegrams today, and enough has been said about the cost of a telegram, but it

seems to me that a very large part of the cost must be attributable to the labour in handling and, particularly, in delivering it. It seems to me that 5s. for the handling and delivery of a telegram is not unreasonable. I am being perfectly candid about this. On the other hand, I think it unreasonable that the 5s. should be related to the number of words in a telegram. I cannot see why the 5s. charge should be tied to 12 words, because every word over the 12 certainly does not cost 5d. The Press gets very reasonable rates for its telegrams; the night telegram is very much cheaper, although, perhaps, still too dear.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, instead of allowing 12 words for 5s., he might very well, without additional cost to himself, allow 20 or 40 or even 60 words for 5s. The extra cost to the Post Office would be negligible because all the overheads would be borne anyway.
I have given a good deal of thought to the charge for telegrams. At present, this must include delivery, and I make the very tentative suggestion that there might well be a delivery charge. If a telegram is to be delivered with the ordinary mail, as an express letter is at the moment, then obviously the charge of 5s. is quite extortionate. If it can be delivered within a very short distance of the delivery office, then the charge of 5s., is extortionate, but if a person chooses, as I do, to live three miles from the nearest post office, I do not see why he should not pay a little extra for it. It seems to me that a delivery charge of, say, 1s. a mile after the first would not be unreasonable. I feel that far too many of the Post Office charges are based upon the traditional way of doing things. So much per word is charged for a telegram. If we think these things out afresh, not only in regard to telegrams but also parcels and letters, I believe that the Post Office might make very much better use of its resources and we should still get a very adequate service. Those people who wish it ought to be prepared and willing to pay for the extra service they get.

Mr. Ross: Who is to pay for the delivery service? Is it the person who receives the telegram or the one who sends it?

Mr. Hendry: That is not for me to answer. I put the proposition to the


Post Office. These are things which I consider ought to be thought about seriously by the people running the Post Office and who understand the difficulties that it meets in practice.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) made a number of interesting suggestions. So far as I followed them, they seemed to come to this, that the richer the man the better the service he can buy from the Post Office. I think that applies to his suggestions about letters, telephones, telegrams and the rest. That seems to me to be a very wrong principle for us to apply to the postal service—that the man who has the longest purse should be able to obtain the most efficient service from the Post Office and the person not so fortunate should have to wait. That is what the hon. Member is really propounding. In other words, we are to have first- and second-class citizenship; those who can afford the best postal service and those who cannot afford it. That does not appeal to me very much.
I was interested, however, in other remarks made by the hon. Member. I hope that the next time he is talking about nationalisation he will recall some of the eulogies which he has just delivered on the postal service. I suggest that it would not be a bad idea if he printed some of those tributes and circularised them in his constituency. It might help to counteract the other leaflets which he will be sending out condemning nationalisation. It is very interesting when hon. Members are called upon to comment on the postal service, because they sometimes find themselves in the peculiar position of having to pay tribute to something, the principles of which they do not accept.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) made a very useful and constructive speech in which he managed to compress an enormous amount of constructive criticism and also suggestions, as well as putting a large number of questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I was interested in his remarks about the possible effects of Dr. Beeching's proposals for our transport services in relation to the postal services in the remoter areas. This seems

to me to be a problem, and I think that the Postmaster-General ought to give some assurances that the Post Office is in fact prepared for whatever Dr. Beeching might have in store for us. This is particularly important in Scotland where a great number of remote areas are dependent to a very large extent upon our railway services.
Mention has also been made of the changes in telephone charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw said that he did not think that the increase of subscribers' local calls on S.T.D. from three to six minutes was sufficient. I disagree with that. I think that six minutes is quite sufficient when I bear in mind that the charges in respect of longer distances have all gone up. I cannot see why we should be increasing the length of time of the local calls and cutting down the length of time for the long-distance calls.
The person who has a long-distance call to make is usually not the person who is doing it just to fill in time. He is doing it because he has to do it or because he wants to do it, perhaps because he has not heard from someone for a long time and wants to find out how he is getting on. Everyone knows that quite a lot of local calls are made just because someone has time to fill in, Most women with telephones in their houses are guilty of this. I know that in my own house this goes on and it goes on in other peoples' houses, too. Nevertheless, I do not see why we should make it increasingly easy for people to spend an hour on the telephone just because they want to have a gossip. Good luck to them in their gossip but it does not seem reasonable to ask us to make it easier for them and more difficult for the person who has a long-distance call to make.
I should have thought that the thing to do was to try to get the telephone service more or less on the lines of the postal service. I can send a letter from the House of Commons to Thurso for the same price that I send a letter to Regent Street. I should have thought that it ought to have been the aim to make it equally easy for people to communicate wherever they might live and not necessarily to give priority to people who live nearest to each other and incidentally are able to visit each other more easily.
That seems to me to be a sound principle but one from which the Post Office is departing. People in the same town can visit each other without a great deal of difficulty, but people separated by 300 or 400 miles cannot do so. Therefore, the telephone, which becomes increasingly important to the people 200 or 300 miles apart, is possibly not as important for people living in the same town. The same argument, I think, has a degree of relevance to business calls. Business people within a town frequently meet each other for lunch or meetings of one kind or another, but people living 200 or 300 miles apart do not meet each other very frequently. Therefore, the principle arising from this consideration ought to be to try to bring these charges closer together instead of widening them. Because of that, if am sorry to see the proposals of the Postmaster-General.
I do not wish to say anything about telegrams, which have been commented upon at length, except to agree with the criticism that 5s. for 12 words is a bit steep. This is a form of communication between people without telephones for all sorts of necessary purposes—to send word that someone is seriously ill, and that sort of thing.
I agree with what has been said about overseas rates. We should not make it more difficult to send papers abroad, especially commercial papers which are likely to do us good in our export trade.
I rose to speak primarily on a question which has not been raised so far. I understand from the White Paper, Post Office Prospects, 1963–64 that the Post Office is increasing its capital expenditure by £23 million this year. I wish to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General what proportion of this £23 million he thinks will be spent in Scotland. I know that this might raise a smile, but it is relevant to the economic situation of the country as a whole. This is a massive increase in Government purchasing power. It will create employment in the areas in which it is spent. If the bulk of it is spent in areas where there is not a high level of unemployment, it will create more employment in areas where it is not necessary and not in areas where it is desperately needed. Quite a large part of this sum is in respect of the telecommunications

services, and I take it that a great deal of it must be in respect of equipment for these services.
Surely something should be done to ensure that this money is spread over areas of high unemployment. I refer not simply to Scotland; the argument is relevant to north-east England and to other areas of high unemployment. It seems to me that unless we ensure that the areas in which this money is spent are widely spread we shall increase the attraction of areas in which there is already full employment, and, very frequently, over-full employment, which is a bad thing nationally from the point of view of planning, the development of local services, and so on. In other words, we shall increase the magnetic power of London to attract population from the rest of the country. If London and the Home Counties get the vast hulk of this increase, the power of attraction of these areas becomes increasingly greater and they will draw men from the north of Scotland and from Land's End. That is most undesirable.
I was exceedingly disappointed that the Post Office, instead of transferring its research station from Dollis Hill to Harrow, did not site it out of London altogether. I see no reason why it needs to be in London. While it was at Dollis Hill, I should not have thought of shifting it; but, since it was decided to remove it to another area, some development district which needed expansion should have been considered. Instead of being shifted to Harrow, it could have gone to Durham, Northumberland or Scotland. A fine site for it could have been found in the lowland belt of Scotland, in Edinburgh or on the West Coast. If the Government will not do these things, they cannot expect private enterprise to do them. They should set an example, even if it means spending a few million pounds more, because many millions would be saved in the long run.
Why cannot the Post Office step up the installation of telephones and the creation of new post offices in areas of high unemployment? Thousands of people in Scotland are waiting for telephones. Many new cables need to be laid and post offices need to be built. Surely these jobs should be done when unemployment is high. The same arguments apply to other areas in which unemployment is such a big problem.
I should like to raise one or two local points. The first concerns telephone booths, Unfortunately, in my constituency—I do not suppose my constituency is alone in this—the Post Office has had to remove telephone boxes because of the damage done to them. Vandalism has resulted in damage being done to boxes over and over again, and the Post Office has finally taken them away. I am not criticising the Post Office. It is obvious that it cannot go on paying out large sums of money for telephone boxes which are deliberately destroyed, but, when telephone boxes are erected in areas where it knows vandalism is prevalent, could it not consult organisations in those areas—churches, schools, clubs, and bodies like that—about siting the boxes in a place where they will be under some sort of supervision?
I have in mind one box which, I should have thought, could have been taken from the public roadway and conveniently put in a community centre or at least close to it where it would, more or less, have been under supervision and less liable to damage. It is unfortunate that people in areas where boxes subject to vandalism are sited should have to suffer, because sometimes it is not even the people living in the area who damage the boxes. I put forward the suggestion, because it seems to me to offer an approach to the problem, that in siting telephone kiosks the Post Office should consuit people—it might be a school, a church, a community centre or the police station, for example—with a view to locating the boxes in areas where they are not likely to receive the same damage.
I do not want to speak too much about my constituency, but I should like in one sentence to remind the Postmaster-General that in the Craigmillar area of my constituency we badly need a Crown post office. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about this and I venture to mention it again. Having done so, I leave it at that.
I end my few remarks by expressing my appreciation, as other hon. Members have done, of the postal service and of the manner in which the people in its service do their work cheerfully, ungrudgingly and certainly in a manner which calls for the respect and admiration of most people.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: As I have not heard the whole of the debate, I do not wish, nor would it be right, to make a long speech. I wish, however, to reinforce a plea which I made to my right hon. Friend at Question Time the other day to see whether he cannot overcome the delays which are becoming almost universal in both the letter and the parcel post services between London and the more distant parts of the country.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not regard this as merely a personal grouse of mine, but since I asked the Question the other day I have had numerous letters from the North-West of England, from Manchester to the Border, and all of them supporting my plea and saying that the deterioration has become so marked that improvement is overdue.
It is not out of the ordinary for parcels to take up to six days or for letters to take two or three days. The other day, I discovered in the Library that the times for the mails between Carlisle and London were shorter in the days of horse traffic and the stage coach than they are today, although I am not prepared to say that in those days the charges were not a good deal higher. Nevertheless, it is a sorry reflection that by 1963, in the timings for mails between distant parts of England and London, we have not moved forward hut, possibly, have even slipped back.
In making this criticism, I do not want it to appear as levelled at the local staffs, who do their best and always maintain a wonderful standard of courtesy with the local public, whom they not only serve but whom they make it their business to know. That is appreciated throughout the country.
In his reply the other day, my right hon. Friend hinted that possibly the larger part of the blame for the delays ought to be borne by the railways, who, it seems, do not handle post office traffic in the same efficient way as they did in the past. I know that in public, Ministers are like other animals—dog does not like eating dog; none the less, if the fault is that of the railways, my right hon. Friend should come straight out and say so. I am told that the railways are no longer prepared to take mails for transport by each and every train, as was formerly the practice, but insist upon mails being sent only by certain trains.


I hear too that on the line to the North-West, where mail may have to change trains at Crewe or Preston, endless delays can result. I wish that my right hon. Friend would say where the blame really lies. It would do nothing but good.
I do not wish to go back on my undertaking not to make a long speech, but I do want my right hon. Friend to realise that this is a real grievance, and I hope that he can assure us that we will see an early and substantial improvement.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have a criticism to make of the Post Office, and I want also to be helpful. My criticism of the Post Office is that there is too much conservatism at the top. I am glad that the Assistant Postmaster-General has gone from the Chamber and that the Postmaster-General is present, because I would once again make the Assistant Postmaster-General blush if he were here. In a supplementary question the other day, I said that the occasion of a bona fide working man from the Electrical Trades Union arriving as a Minister at the Dispatch Box was worthy of the issue of a special stamp. That suggestion is perfectly reasonable. We do not often get the phenomenon of a working man appearing at the Dispatch Box, and I should have been delighted if a special stamp of the hon. Gentleman had been printed for the occasion.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The first stamp of that kind would have to go to the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn.

Mr. Hughes: I was talking of Conservative Ministers. I am sorry if I did not refer to the former Postmaster-General. Of course, I remember the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn, who happened to be a member, not of the Electrical Trades Union, but of the Miners' Federation.
I want to be helpful to the Postmaster-General, and I suggest to him that the time has come to abandon this conservative policy of his in regard to stamps. Public opinion is ready for, and would welcome, a change in the rigid doctrinaire, old-fashioned Victorian policy of raising every obstacle to a much greater variety of stamps.
I have with me what the Postmaster-General might not consider to be an envelope at all, but a coat of many colours. It happens to be a letter which I have received from one of the great literary figures of the U.S.S.R., who always sends me the latest variety of stamps printed by the Russians. These stamps indicate a policy which is followed not only by the U.S.S.R. but by the U.S.A. as well. In this matter, we are one of the least progressive and most unimaginative of nations, and I want to see a change.
I have taken part in an agitation for a special stamp to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Robert Burns. That was not a partisan demand but was expressed by an all-party delegation from both Houses of Parliament. We summoned the clans. We had the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), with whom I am not usually associated in any revolutionary agitation. We had various Members of the other House and we had prominent leaders of the Burns Federation. I shall never forget the time when we of that all-party deputation went to the Prime Minister's room at the back of the Chair. I believe that it was the first and only time I have been there in the history of the present Government.
The Prime Minister is a Scotsman and we expected that he would overrule the rather reactionary viewpoint of the former Postmaster-General, who has since become Minister of Transport, and we thought that we were making an impression. We had the late Mr. Kevin MacDowall, one of the great figures in the Burns literary events of his time, and we had the president of the Burns Federation, who, I believe, is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) at Irvine and who gloried in the name of MacMillan. We brought him because we thought that he would make an extra impression.
Mr. Kevin MacDowell recited two of the poems of Burns in a way which, I thought, brought tears to the eyes of the Prime Minister, who, after all, was a Scotsman listening to a Scotsman We thought we had made an impression. He said, "I will take this carefully into consideration and I will write to you personally when I have come to my decision." As we went out into the Lobby


Mr. MacMillan and Kevin MacDowall, with tears in their eyes, said, "We have made an impression on the Prime Minister at last and we will get our stamp." I said, "Do not be such—adjectivefools." Of course we did not get anything. Only sympathy. We did not even get sympathy when the letter came. We got a long, wordy letter which could have been put in one word, "No"—the eternal negative. And that is what we have had since, and I suggest that the time has come for the Postmaster-General, who, in many ways, is regarded as enterprising and progressive, to start this innovation and to yield to public opinion all over Scotland.
We did not demand very much. The Burns Federation did not demand very much. It did not demand that the Queen's head should be taken off the stamp and Robert Burns's head be put on instead. We did not even suggest that the two of them should be on the same stamp. Our very modest request was that the old cottage in Ayr, known throughout the whole of the literary world, should be on one of those oblong stamps; that the Queen's head should be in the corner and that the background should be of the cottage. That moderate, modest request from overwhelming public opinion in Scotland was ruthlessly turned down from the Prime Minister to the Postmaster-General and the permanent officials of the Post Office. So today we have yet no Burns stamp.
I remember being in Moscow on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Robert Burns. After I had made a speech along came a gentleman who said to me, "When are you going to get your Burns stamp in Britain?" I said, "I do not know." "Oh," he said, "we had our Burns stamp," and he offered me a few. I said, "Who are you?" He said, "I am the Postmaster-General for the Soviet Union. We wonder why Great Britain does not honour its great literary figures the way the U.S.S.R. does." I bought about a dozen stamps and slipped them as a present to the Prime Minister, hoping he would use one of them in a postcard of instructions to the Postmaster-General at home. But no response.
I suggest that the time has come for the Postmaster-General to realise that this is an expression of opinion of all parties and all different people in Scot-

land, that we should have this stamp, in the modest way I have described. Then why not imitate the U.S.S.R. in some other ways? The U.S.S.R. has its heroes, its Gagarins and Titovs, who are commemorated after every occasion of their historic efforts. I see no reason why we should not do the same. We have our great scientists, our people who have made contributions to the arts and literature and science, and I believe we should follow the example of the U.S.S.R. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who had rather gathered I was going to raise this subject, said, "Ask the Postmaster-General if they are going to imitate the Russians and do something about the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Charles Dickens." And what about Shakespeare next year? The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard of Burns but surely he has heard of Shakespeare.

Mr. Cyril Bence: And what about Owen Glendower?

Mr. Hughes: I suggest we should take note of the fact that the Russians commemorate Shakespeare, Fielding, Darwen and Dickens and so on. Those are the only ones I can remember at the moment, but there are many more, and we should take a step away from tradition and precedents and issue stamps of this kind.
I know there was a special stamp being issued for the War on Want. When I tried to raise the question of Robert Burns, Mr. Speaker said, "No, Robert Burns is a long way from the War on Want." But Burns was one of the pioneers in the war on want, and this would have been a suitable occasion.
We have had various tentative yieldings to pressure groups, like the Inter-Parliamentary Association. We had a special stamp to commemorate that, but there was a definite political and Parliamentary pressure group on that occasion. In view of all the stamps there have been celebrating certain events in the Commonwealth, we feel that people who can pull the strings can change Post Office policy. A great event is held in Edinburgh every year. If the Edinburgh Festival had been held in Chicago, Texas, Leningrad or Moscow, it would


have had a special stamp. It takes place in August, and the Postmaster-General now has an opportunity to turn over a new leaf.
I believe that this would bring in extra revenue. It would attract revenue from all parts of the world, from people who collect stamps, and they are very many. Last week a mistake was made with a small series of stamps; the Queen's head was, unfortunately, omitted. We would not object if the Postmaster-General wanted to make some money and left the Queen's head off the Burns' stamp. We should be prepared to compromise on that. I believe that my hon. Friends from Scotland endorse the plea that I make that the Post Office should have imagination and live up to the times.
I am glad that there has been very little criticism of the Post Office as a nationalised institution. What has become of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro)? I thought he would have been here to denounce the nasty, smelly Post Office as he denounced the nasty, smelly National Coal Board. But one cannot say that about the Post Office, because it has been respectable. Not even the most Conservative of Conservative hon. Members opposite have come forward to argue that the Post Office should be denationalised.
I have been inspired by some stamps which make allusion to the output of certain classes of workers. The Postmaster-General must know that this year the miners have increased their output. Why should we not have a miner's head on a stamp? Why should there not be tributes to the people who do the hard work of the world and who deserve some recognition of this kind?
I hope that my few words will not have escaped the Postmaster-General. We do not want him to rush in and commit us to anything desperate tonight, but I hope that my words will have an effect and that in due time we shall have something like what I have suggested passing through our post offices.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in his plea for stamps, though I certainly support him. There

is complete unanimity in Scotland on this subject. Ultimately we shall get the stamps that we have been asking for, especially the one to commemorate our national bard, Robert Burns.

Mr. Ross: We would rather have jobs.

Mr. Manuel: Yes, but jobs and stamps can go together. Perhaps one cannot get one without the other. One has to write to tell people about jobs, and if it could be done with a Burns' stamp it might do the Scottish black spots some good.
I take it that any alteration to the postal services should be of great concern to hon. Members. I completely endorse the very high tributes paid by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) to this nationalised service. It is the first time I have heard him be so complimentary to a publicly-owned service. He is coming on very well, and I hope he will continue in this way. The Post Office is an admirable service, and we should do all we can to increase its prestige and make it more efficient in every way.
I deplore the increase in telegram charges. The minimum charge of 5s. is a shocking imposition. The Postmaster-General may well be able to show that this Post Office service is losing money, but he must not isolate one service and say that it must show a clear profit by itself, as he did last week when announcing the charges.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member is quite wrong. I said nothing of the kind. I said that the increase in the charges would lessen by about one-third the loss which the Post Office sustains on its telegram service.

Mr. Manuel: That is exactly what I am saying.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby) indicated dissent.

Mr. Manuel: The trade union branch secretary on the Government Front Bench need not start shaking his head. I am not dealing with him yet. I am dealing with the Postmaster-General, and one member of the Government Front Bench is enough for a back bencher to tackle at one time.
I was saying that the excuse for increasing the telegram charge was that there


was a heavy loss in this service. I am saying that that is no justification and that the Post Office as a whole has to carry a loss on one service. If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, the Postmaster-General will charge more for letters going from London to West Aberdeen than for letters going to Central Ayrshire.
I particularly deplore the harsh injustice which is done to poorer sections of the community who do not have telephones, especially to the increased number of unemployed and those receiving National Assistance, whose only medium of communication in times of death or illness or other emergency is the telegram. For such people the charge is extortionate.
The increase from three minutes to six minutes for local telephone calls is also to be deplored. It is a liberty at this time. When I use the telephone, it is seldom that I speak for more than three minutes. The Postmaster-General must appreciate that he is increasing the time to six minutes when many people are being forced to share lines and when they may be unable to make a call, regardless of the necessity to do so, because the line is engaged by the other party. I should like him to consider reducing the number of calls which could be made in certain areas—because of the extension to six minutes—so long as lines have to be shared.
The number of shared lines is increasing alarmingly, and no excuse is now taken for not sharing. Even someone who has enjoyed having his own line for many years may suddenly be told that the Post Office has decided that he must have a shared line. How many shared lines are there where one person can occupy the phone to the exclusion of someone else?
Will he also tell us how many people are waiting for telephones and what he is doing about the waiting list? The position is worse in some areas than in others, and in some cases people are complaining about not getting facilities for which they are paying, when they want them. I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to give us some information on the points that I have raised.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I do not think that this has been a very happy day for the Postmaster-General. Not long

ago he announced with a flourish that the Post Office was to gain commercial freedom and that great developments would flow from it. We can see now how that freedom has been used.
I do not worry about the fact that the profit of the Post Office has gone down from what it expected to what it calls the dangerously low figure of £9 million. I am worried about the promised developments that were to flow from commercial freedom. The Post Office, like every other nationalised industry, is being hit by the Government, and this factor is more important than stamps. Electricity charges are being put up for the simple reason that the Government have told the electricity boards to find more money for their capital development from their customers out of revenue. This edict has been issued to the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and to all the boards in England and Wales. The same comment applies to the Post Office. It has been told that to finance future developments it must find more money from revenue, and, whether we like it or not, that means raising charges.
The additional charges will provide £14 million. However one considers this sum in relation to the overall income of the Post Office, it will remain an increase of £14 million, and when this figure is related to the increase in the cost of trunk calls and telegrams we see that it is a very much higher proportionate figure than the one which the Postmaster-General used in answer to questions when he made his statement.
I question the desirability of making customers pay for the services which people will get 20 years hence. In other words, I question the wisdom of the way in which we are financing our nationalised industries. The present system is unfair to the Post Office and to all those who work so hard to build up the service, and who earn praise from unexpected quarters on the other side of the House which we seldom hear when we are dealing with the nationalised industries.
The Post Office has, deservedly, earned a tremendous amount of good will in the country. The Postmaster-General, too, deserves some praise for the way in which he has carried out some modernisation of this industry. The quality of the service has been greatly improved


by making every person behind the counter handle not merely one specialised piece of business, but all forms of business. This procedure has cut down queues and has been praised by everyone.
One aspect of Post Office finance has not been mentioned. There was a time when the profits from the letter service paid for developments in the Post Office. This is not so today. It is the telephone service now. Within that service we can discount residential telephones and kiosks, because they do not pay. What pay are the business telephone service and the trunk service. Yet those services are being further hit.
There is no doubt about the success of the S.T.D. system in encouraging people to make telephone calls. We have had our little fun about the Scotsman making telephone calls home—but there are considerable savings, provided that the caller knows what he has to say, and is not prepared to listen to a long harangue from the other end, for which he has to pay. I could make a telephone call to Scotland tonight for 6d. The result is that I am liable to make two or three whereas I made only one before. That is the psychology of the S.T.D. system. But it does not work with local calls, because a different set of circumstances arises.
I feel that some hon. Members have been rather hard on the Postmaster-General in reference to the extension of the time limit of three minutes. Many people are living fairly lonely lives, and their only link with the rest of the world is the telephone. It was a hardship when local calls were limited to three minutes. I do not think that six minutes is too bad. However, we must appreciate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) pointed out, that many people are sharing party lines, but even they are a little better off than they were a year ago, when there was no limit to these conversations.
But we are undoubtedly hitting the people who make trunk calls, and who are farthest away from London. Week in and week out, year in and year out, Scottish Members have been pressing the Government to realise, in everything they do, the effect upon Scotland and areas of

high unemployment, which tend to be some distance away from London. Anyone who settles in London and carries on business in Scotland will be at a decided disadvantage, whereas the person whose connections are already in the London area will have a tremendous range of telephone calls for the local call charge. The Postmaster-General has been unwise in making this increase in trunk call charges, and I hope that he will have second thoughts in the matter.
My other point concerns capital development. Here we are to have an increase of about £23 million. Two points arise in this connection. How much of that development will take place in Scotland and, even more important, how much will take place in Kilmarnock? What Scotland requires is houses, both privately built and local authority built. The Kilmarnock Town Council decided that there should be private housing development in part of the town, and in order to help it they said, "If people want houses to buy we will build them in the Grange Estate". Houses have been built for sale there.
The right hon. Gentleman knows how many telephones there are there. In these new houses we cannot supply anyone with a telephone. Until recently the waiting time was about two years. It has been reduced by about six months since I have been in correspondence with the Postmaster-General on the matter. I have had a letter from a person who says that he is a managing director of an American firm, within reach of the Kilmarnock area. He is living in a house in Scotland, and the Postmaster-General cannot provide him with a telephone. The managing director of the Co-operative Society in Kilmarnock—which also covers Ayr—cannot get a telephone in the new housing area in which he lives. The thing is ridiculous. The Postmaster-General has been in the process of supplying a new telephone exchange for a long time and I am wondering to what extent there has been a holding back within the Post Office in the last year in relation to capital development. Is there to be an increase this year in order to catch up with what has been held back in the previous year?

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Bevins indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head,


but we have to be convinced about this. In my constituency the advertising of its services by the Post Office has become a bit of a joke, because the services are not available. I agree that the Post Office should advertise, providing that the services which are being advertised are given.
How much is to be done in respect of Scotland? Where is the money to be spent? Of the equipment, the lines, the actual telephones and all the other things, how much will be manufactured in the development districts? I should like to know how much will be made in Scotland. The most satisfactory answer which we have received to this question related to the number of telephone kiosks to be made in Scotland. But do not let us applaud too quickly, because telephone kiosks are not being replaced rapidly. When they are, we have new ones which I do not think are made in Scotland. They are certainly not of the Falkirk type which I should prefer.
I wish to know whether the Postmaster-General is using his influence to press spending Departments to ensure that contracts are placed bearing in mind the needs of the development districts. If the right hon. Gentleman has £156 million to spend, he has an immense power of employment. If he and other Ministers with the power of industrial patronage in their hands would exercise it in relation to a location of industry policy which was sensible, and brought a fair share to the development districts, there would be less moaning from hon. Members on both sides of the House about unemployment in the North-East, in Scotland and elsewhere.
Like other hon. Members, I wish the Post Office well. I hope that after Dr. Beeching has finished with the railways he will not descend on the Post Office. The former Postmaster-General, now the Minister of Transport, may not have forgotten what probably he would like to have done about telegrams but had not the courage to do when he was Postmaster-General. The problem was handed on to the present Minister. The 5s. charge has long been "on the plate" of the Postmaster-General. It presents an insoluble problem. The more telegrams are despatched, the bigger the loss, and all that can be done is to make the charge as prohibitive as the Minister dares in

order to cut down the loss. As the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire in an intervention, he is reducing the loss by one-third.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a Committee was set up to study the matter and if the Minister of Transport, when he was Postmaster-General, had acted on the advice which he sought and received, the problem would have been dealt with a long time ago. I wish that the Minister would ignore the commercial considerations in respect of this service and realise its value in those areas of the country where people have no hope of getting a telephone. In such areas the telegram service is essential and it is an imposition that the minimum charge should be 5s. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about this again. We want a little more than pure commercialism from the Post Office. It provides a wonderful service. But do not let us have panic decisions regarding a problem which requires, not attention, but a decision. To my mind the decision should be to retain this service as a public service.
I certainly hope that the Post Office will have a better year this year than last year. It may be that during this year I shall be called to another of those rare meetings of the Post Office Advisory Council. I have been a distinguished member of that Council, but, like the rest, an absent member for a long time. During the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman we have met about twice. Perhaps one of these years we shall have another meeting.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: With the announcement of the new Post Office charges I can understand why the Conservative vote in the Colne Valley by-election was so low. In the eleven years I have been a member for this House how often have I heard from the benches opposite, when a nationalised industry has been up against economic circumstances and its revenue was falling, that one of the worst things to do was to raise its charges?
How often have we heard that in such circumstances it was necessary to increase the efficiency of the industry? That was said of the Coal Board and of British


Railways. It has always been said about those industries. It was said that the railways by putting up fares found no solution to economic difficulties. Is this not true of the Post Office? Do the Government imagine that they can build the Post Office into an efficient service in the interests of the economy of the country by merely putting up its charges?
We have nearly one million unemployed. There is slack in the economy and productivity is not rising. If productivity does not rise, industrial costs rise. Yet this is the Government's contribution to stimulating the economy. No worse time could be selected to impose these charges on the Post Office. These charges in many cases constitute a rising cost to industry. Surely this is the wrong thing to do.
The White Paper Post Office Prospects, 1963–64 talks about the growth of business, but is this the way to stimulate growth in business? We have been told that the greater the expansion in the telephone service the greater the loss entailed. Surely there is something inefficient there. The cost of a telegram used to be 3s. 6d. One went into a post office filled in a form and handed it in. Then a fellow would go out on a motor-bike and deliver the telegram. Where in that chain of activity can economies be made to make the telegram service profitable? Is there a fair allocation of time of the operator in the post office? What is the allocation of time in his duties attributed to the service of a particular telegram? The Post Office should get some chartered accountants to analyse this, to find why this particular service is selected and why it is said to be unprofitable.
We hear that a traditional service which has been functioning for many years has become unprofitable in the last few years. Those of us on this side of the House may be thankful that this did not happen when the Labour Government were in power. The present Government have been in office for eleven years and the economy is stagnating. If the economy is stagnating and trade and business activities fall, the Post Office obviously suffers with the rest.
We read in the Press that we are to have a give-away Budget and relief of

taxation to stimulate the economy. Parallel to that, the same Government impose more commercial charges on industry. This is a complete conflict of ideas on the part of the Government. Last year's profit of £9 million seems a small figure in comparison with the vast turnover. The profit for 1963–64 is estimated at about £20 million, I think. This is an assumption which may not materialise.
The increased charges may curtail the services. Fewer people may use the telegram service, the telephone service, or the parcels service. There may be a decline in these services. Some other institution—the railways or road carriers—may take up some of the parcels service. With a smaller turnover the profit may fall. In my view, it is a rake's progress to try to solve the economics of the Post Office or any other large-scale industry by continually increasing the charges. We know that this is happening everywhere. Private enterprise is doing it through the trade associations. Instead of industries in the private sector analysing themselves with a view to making themselves competitive and cutting out the dead wood and waste, there is a recourse by agreement to increasing charges for the services provided. This leads to inflation. This is another step in the inflationary progress in which the Government have been indulging for eleven years. The cost of everything increases under this Government—coal, railways, the Post Office. Expenditure on the Civil Service and the Departments of State is greater than it ever was. It is at an all-time level. This is the easy way out. It is the way out adopted by complacent, apathetic people, people who are too lazy to examine the details of their administration. Twice in this Parliament Post Office charges have been increased. It last happened in 1961.
I want to support the plea for Scotland made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In my constituency, at a foundry in Kirkintilloch we used to cast the pressings for kiosks. A visitor to Lisbon will see telephone kiosks—they are red—which were cast in that famous factory at Kirkintilloch. They are to be seen throughout Portugal, but they are disappearing from the United Kingdom. They are done with pressings now in aluminium alloys.


Different types of kiosks are now being made, so the factory at Kirkintilloch is losing a great deal of its work. There must be technical advances, but we in Scotland still think that we should get a bigger share of some of the work being done for the Post Office.
There are development plans to the tune of £156 million for 1963–64. We hope that a very large slice of this £156 million will be spent in Scotland. We have the industries there. We have many of the newer industries. Recently I visited a firm in the burgh of Kirkintilloch, a very progressive burgh. I visited a small factory there employing about 700 men. It makes electrical switch-gear. It is in an excellent position to manufacture for the Post Office.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is it in the ring?

Mr. Bence: I do not know. It has not been knocked out yet. If it gets into the ring it will account for itself very well indeed. It will go the full fifteen rounds and come out the winner. I went round the plant. It is an excellent plant. It is wonderfully well organised. It is in a position to provide the Post Office with a good deal of the hardware that goes into the communications system.
I recommend the Postmaster-General to make inquiries. Some of these small factories in Scotland have been established for many years but they move with the times. They have good development departments and able young men. I have met some of these energetic young men who are prepared to go out to find work and to manufacture what the customer wants. I hope that the Postmaster-General will forget some of the traditional sources in the Midlands and the South and will look farther afield for his suppliers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) spoke about telephone and letter charges and the attempt to differentiate between services and to make each profitable and able to stand on its own feet. The Assistant Postmaster-General may be able to justify the charges for telegrams, local and trunk telephone calls, and the parcel deliveries, but I hope that this is not the thin end of the wedge of a suggestion that the mail service to places like Stornoway, Wick, or Lerwick, to the

Shetlands, or to Campbeltown in Argyll, a very awkward place to get to, should be based like trunk telephone charges on mileage. I hope that we shall never have letter postage based on the distance over which the letter has to be delivered. If we are going to talk in terms of breaking the Post Office service up and analysing the profitability of each little department, a latter posted in Westminster for Stornoway or Benbecula will cost a great deal more than the present 3d.
In the second half of the 20th century the Post Office services surely should be such that the Government should be able to equalise things out over this vast network in the same way as charges for letters are now evened out. We in Scotland admit that it is to our benefit to have flat rates. Any tapering charges are always expensive for us. At present we are hoping by various means to encourage industries to move up to Scotland from the Midlands and the South. Many of these industries, if they come to Scotland, will be branches of parent industries in the Midlands and the South. If telephone charges are increased this will prevent industrial expansion in this sense and will be an encouragement to concentration at the centre.
I should like to know from the Assistant Postmaster-General how many shared party lines still exist. I have been a subscriber on a shared line since 1951. I never complain. Once I leave the Palace of Westminster I am an ordinary citizen like anybody else and I do not want any privilege, though I would give a privilege in this respect to a doctor. I am not grumbling, but many people who share a party line complain of the tremendous inconvenience this causes. I have to put up with it. It does not worry me, although it is a nuisance, My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire spoke of how a constituent might ring up a Member of Parliament and might occupy the line for six minutes. I should have thought that one would be very lucky to be delayed for only six minutes by one's constituents. I have had them on the telephone for an hour and could not get rid of them.
It is a good job that I am not sharing a party line with another Member of


Parliament, for we would be in some difficulty. I was in a part of my constituency last week when one of the members of my party was kept speaking on the telephone for 48 minutes. She just could not get rid of the person who was on the other end of the line. With party lines, when this sort of thing goes on life becomes very difficult indeed. I do not suffer from this sort of thing very often. I have arranged for my wife to call out in a loud voice that I am wanted; I make sure that she can be heard on the other end of the telephone and I am able to make my excuses.
I should, however, like the Assistant Postmaster-General to make a survey of party lines throughout the country. Some people do not like to complain and grumble. They will put up with inconvenience. They will abuse a service, but they will not take the necessary action to remedy the situation. I feel that there must be a lot of friction and frustration in households as a result of this sharing system. Surely, eighteen years after the war has ended, with all the development that has been going on, something could be done to improve the situation. We have telecommunications around the world. We can bounce messages off the moon and can send messages from New York to Tokio or Melbourne or Sydney; yet I find it difficult to speak by telephone from my house to a friend in Kirkintilloch 15 miles away because I am on a party line.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: We have had a long and wide-ranging debate. What has been most commendable has been the number of Members who have paid tributes to the Post Office workers for their unstinting efforts during the long and arduous winter—engineers, linesmen, postmen and postwomen who have been tested severely during the past few months. They have had to rise early in the morning and, besides going through the snow and ice to get to work, have continued going on their morning rounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, in paying tribute to the postal workers, could no doubt have given numerous examples of their conscientious endeavours during the winter. All of them have been a credit to the General Post Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) rightly referred to the fact that during the past twelve months to two years the economy has been slack. There has been a great deal of hesitancy and anxiety among industrialists mainly because of the Common Market talks, and this has had its effect on the general services and a particularly bad effect on the Post Office returns. There has been a lower turnover than the Postmaster-General planned for, a lower sale of postal orders, stamps, etc.
Allied to this has been the legal recognition of betting shops and their growth. There has also been a growth in fixed betting on the pools. Consequently, fewer postal orders and stamps have been sold, and, no doubt, this has had its effect on other Post Office services.
In addition, we have recently had to suffer a very long and freezing winter. Consequently, there has been no soccer for some time. There was no league football, and for a period there were no football pools. It is a sad reflection, but nevertheless it is true, that the state of our nation is such that some services within the General Post Office almost live or die according to the amount of gambling that takes place in the country. A considerable amount of Post Office business depends upon Littlewoods, Vernons and other pool promoters. According to the figures which the Postmaster-General gave today, we have lost £4·1 million in the last two years. This virtually means that we have lost it in two winters, during the two football seasons, and it amounts to the fact that in ten active football months in the last two years we have lost more than £4 million. This makes one wonder whether, if we have another cold spell next winter and the pools are again affected, the Postmaster-General will come to the Box to ask sanction for another rise in telephone charges. Is it not a ridiculous and disgraceful situation that the cost, or even the life, of some of our essential services should have to depend to this extent on the amount of gambling which takes place?
The Postmaster-General has asked today for his extra £14 million. I contend that, for some time now, his estimates have been completely wrong and his judgment on where the burden should


fall has been just as bad. Generally speaking, the new increases will first hit industry, particularly the small firm. It is industry, particularly the small firm, which is the main user of the trunk telephone system upon which the right hon. Gentleman relies for a great deal of the money to keep the Post Office alive.
The new charges will hit firms which are just deciding whether to go to the unemployed regions of the North. Those contemplating moving may think again. Would it not be far better to stay in London or the South rather than be saddled with large telephone bills for calls made from the North to business people or Whitehall Departments in the South? The telephone charges are far too high already. We already have an appalling record in telephone installation and usage, and these increases will make matters worse. Even if the Postmaster-General could step up the pace of installation now, with the increase in cost and its effect upon usage, he would, I believe, be making no advance at all.
Furthermore, since the new increases for trunk telephone calls and the parcel service are bound to hit industry, especially firms which have gone to Scotland and the North-East Coast, it is plain that there is no co-ordination on these matters between Government Departments, unless, of course, as I suspect, it has been thought expedient at this time to put the burden on industry rather than on individuals, following the idea, since this may be an election year, that the electorate must not be annoyed just now. However, if industry is hit, the consumer will indirectly have to pay. This just seems to be the Postmaster-General's sneaky way of passing the buck. The consumer will suffer anyway, although initially the burden will go on to industry.
I agree with what hon. Members have said about the telegram service. Apart from a mad contribution from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), there has been no support for the increase in telegram charges. The telegram is really the poor man's emergency line. By increasing the charge for telegrams, the Postmaster-General has discriminated against a small section of the population in rural areas who have always regarded the telegram service as their lifeline. As we have seen during

the past two or three years, the Postmaster-General seems intent upon killing this service. We warned him many times during the passage of the Post Office Act, 1961, not to over-commercialise the Post Office and ignore these small but essential services.
I said earlier that the Postmaster-General has many times been wrong in his estimates and his judgment. I draw attention to a document published by the Post Office in 1958 entitled "Telephone Policy—The Next Steps". Speaking of the new techniques to be introduced in the telephone service, the foreword says:
This Paper deals with Post Office telephone plans for the next decade.… They are the most sweeping changes ever made. They should revolutionise telephone habits in the next 10 years.… Costs will be reduced. Call charges will be cheaper.
In the conclusions we read:
These plans are based on a sound price policy … The Post Office cannot afford to invest in assets which are rarely used. The objective is to provide telephone service, not unused telephones.
This is a convenient time to consider what has happened since 1958 and see how the plans for the ten years have gone. Five years have now elapsed. We do not need to go back to 1958. The past two or three years have been the stagnant years, the years during which the present Postmaster-General has been responsible for Post Office affairs.
In Post Office Prospects, 1961–62, page 5, it stated that the exchange connections estimated at that time would be 220,000 for that year. The Post Office actually connected 170,000. So in 1961–62, it was 50,000 short in its estimate. Again, in Post Office Prospects, 1962–63, it was stated that there would be a net increase of 200,000 connections, but the White Paper that we are now debating indicates that only 132,000 have been connected. So it is 68,000 connections short. Having estimated, as my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, for a target of connections so high and which miserably failed, the financial surplus, too, has been much lower than expected.
We have also seen during the right hon. Gentleman's term of office that he has been toying with the telephone subscribers. In his first year of office, in 1960, he made a statement on telephone


reductions. This was applauded by the House, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), replying to that debate, said that he hoped that statement would bring back the 300,000 subscribers who had been lost to the telephone service under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor's rule.
A year later, in 1961, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement increasing telephone rentals. We estimated that that statement alone cost the Post Office a loss of a further 170,000 subscribers, because the number of lines that are annually given up increased by over 20 per cent. that year, and the demand, because of the rentals going up, also went down, and the Post Office lost 170,000 subscribers. The right hon. Gentleman came to the House again last week and made a further statement on increasing trunk telephone charges. Again, without any doubt whatsoever, this will have an adverse effect on installations and there will be a further loss of subscribers. The Postmaster-General now seems to delight in coming to the House and introducing a succession of little bitter pill budgets because he is proving annually so hopelessly wrong in his estimates.
The same applies to telephone installations. We are still lagging behind most industrialised countries with a stop-go price policy on telephones. At the moment, only sixteen people out of 100 have telephones in this country. In Norway it is 21 out of 100, in New Zealand 32, Canada 32, Sweden 38 and the U.S.A. 41. It was pointed out by some of my hon. Friends that there are 45,000 still on the waiting list for telephones and the figure, according to this year's White Paper, will rise further this year. It was 50,000 in 1961–62, so relatively no progress has been made in the past two or three years in reducing the waiting list.
Incidentally, many of those who have been promised connections will have to wait two years anyway. Then, having got a telephone, a person may be one of the unfortunate 1 million shared line subscribers, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). Whether the Postmaster-General agrees or not, this is a really hated service. Most people who are on the shared

line service hate it, distrust it, are suspicious of the joint service and would like to give it up. It is time that the Postmaster-General made some strenuous efforts to rid the telephone system of these shared lines. In some areas they are still compulsory if a person wants a connection. At least he should go as far as to make it a voluntary service only.
But, further still, the Post Office, having got a new subscriber, practically forgets that he exists. This should be the beginning of the Post Office interest and investment in him, not the end. Use of the telephone means revenue, and the uses of a telephone should be advertised and encouraged. I therefore applaud what the right hon. Gentleman said, namely, that the Government have decided at last, in spite of the fact that we have had a plan in existence for five years, to spend a little more on advertising the uses of the telephone. He did not say how much it is proposed to spend. I suppose that we shall have to wait until we have the annual report and accounts to find out whether this will be a worth-while advertising campaign.
We are at the bottom of the league when it comes to the average number of conversations per telephone per year. There is not an industrialised nation in the world which uses its telephones less than we do. This is solely because of the Postmaster-General's lack of initiative and because there is not sufficient advertising of the uses of the telephone. The average number of conversations per telephone per year in the United Kingdom is 607. In Norway it is 834, in Sweden 1,006, in the United States 1,309, and in Canada 1,750. We cannot have usage growth if we do not tell the people all the services which telephones can give.
I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on this point last year, and therefore we applaud the fact that the Postmaster-General is now prepared to spend a little more on advertising telephone services. The Post Office spends far less on advertising its real services than any other big enterprise or nationalised concern in this country.
The Postmaster-General introduced his plan ten years ago mainly because he had in mind the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling. We informed the present Postmaster-General, when it gradually came into use, that people were being


badly informed about it. There were shoals of complaints. There were letters in the Press and Questions in the House about it. He gradually came under pressure, and he has now relented a little in these charges. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw pointed out, the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling, despite the plan, is lagging 12 months behind schedule. What a dismal story.
Five years ago, the Government set out a plan for telephone development over the next ten years. It is now half-way through its development. It is failing all along the line—a slow rate of installation and new connections, a waiting list, not enough advertising of usage, shared lines and the trouble about the introduction of S.T.D., and mistaken estimated profits. This has been a period of stagnation in telephone expansion and usage within the Post Office.

Mr. Bence: Complete failure.

Mr. Mason: I turn to the question of global communications by satellites. I wish at the outset to pay tribute to the Post Office engineers for their designing, building, operational efficiency and particularly cost of the Goonhilly Down satellite ground station. This is a credit to the ingenuity and skill of the engineers, particularly when one compares the building and cost of it with the American counterpart and the model which the French adopted from the United States.
The Postmaster-General said today that satellite communications were now technically feasible. He said that there was a Commonwealth conference in this country last March about this and that since he has had exploratory discussions with the United States and Europe. He pointed out that cables and satellites were complementary systems and would be for many years. He talked about international co-operation, about Britain going it alone and about Britain and the Commonwealth co-operating on this. But he emphasised that the United Kingdom cannot go it alone; it would be unrealistic. His conclusion therefore was that, if this is to pay, it must be drawn up in such a fashion that we take advantage of transatlantic trade. The Post Office has been busy on these developments. The right hon. Gentleman estimated that the cost of research at the moment was between £1 million and £2 million.
The Postmaster-General did not tell us what the Post Office or the Government were doing. We still have no idea what the Government intend to do in satellite communications. We have a right to know. We pressed the Postmaster-General on this matter last year, but he seems to be uncommunicative when it is a matter of international communications. He is always vague and cannot tell us definitely what the Government are doing. We have already wasted two years awaiting a decision from the Government on this problem.
Let us consider the possibilities. First, we are members of the European Launcher Development Organisation. The plan was to use Blue Streak as the first-stage launcher and to adapt the French Veronique rocket as the second-stage launcher. The third stage was to be a German rocket, which has still to be developed. Initially, the plan was to cost about £70 million, of which Britain was to pay one-third. In view of the strained relations, particularly with France, it would appear that success is now doubtful.
Secondly, we have been participating in the United States experiments with telephonic and television communications via Telstar and relay satellites. This is all very well for experimental purposes, for testing ground equipment, gaining operational experience, and so on, but it is no good by itself in the long term. We must not be committed to the United States alone in global communications, because, in any event, the renting of telephone lines and television channels would prove exorbitant. It is bad enough that the Americans are able to cut off our missiles for defence purposes. There is no need for us to put ourselves in a position whore they can cut off our communications. We can certainly develop our communications with the Americans, using Goonhilly and the various satellites which are being launched from America for experimental purposes, but for us to be completely reliant upon the Americans would mean that we had to pay exorbitant rents to use telephone and television links across the Atlantic.
Thirdly, I understand that the British Space Development Company, formed about two years ago, presented the Postmaster-General with its plans more than


twelve months ago. This appears to be a British-only project, a combine of aircraft firms who are initially interested. For the cost of £250 million, they assert that we could have global coverage by 1970, using our rockets, our own satellites and our own launching bases at places such as Woomera, the Seychelles and Christmas Island.
Fourthly, there is the United Kingdom-Commonwealth project. As the right hon. Gentleman said a year ago, there was a conference in London of the interested Commonwealth nations who were thinking that there might be possibilities of a Commonwealth project on satellite communications. They might, therefore, have done the groundwork on this scheme. The possibility which I suggest is of a Commonwealth charter, signed by interested parties, indicating a financial and user interest in the scheme.
The trouble is that although we know that all these things have happened, nothing positive has yet been done by the Government. The Postmaster-General seems to be creating the impression that he is not interested in either a British or a Commonwealth project, mainly because of his commitments in cable laying, especially the round-the-world cable network.

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Bevins indicated dissent.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I hope that in winding up the debate the Assistant Postmaster-General will dispel all our fears on this score and inform us of his right hon. Friend's intentions for the development of a satellite communications system.
As is usual, we have two or three irons in the fire. We have plenty of ideas and industry is keen to start, but no decision is forthcoming from the Government. During the course of his remarks at the outset of the debate, why did not the Postmaster-General talk a little more about mechanisation? What has happened to the electronic sorting machine? Is this coming along at the pace that was planned? Is it not being introduced into the Post Office as rapidly as we expected?
What about the automatic letter facing machine? Last year, the right hon.

Gentleman said that he was in consultation with the envelope manufacturers concerning the uniformity of envelopes. There is no point in bringing the automatic letter facing machine into post offices unless, first, we have uniformity in envelopes. He had a discussion twelve months ago with the manufacturers on this point. Why had he not any report to give the House today? Anybody knows who has gone round the sorting offices and has seen the hand sorters doing their job that what hampers their efficiency is, first, different sizes and, secondly, different coloured envelopes or envelopes with their different embellishments on them. Even if we were to get uniform envelopes before the sorting machine is ready to be introduced, that at least would increase the efficiency of the hand sorters. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have said something about that. Is the truth of the matter that the manufacturers themselves are holding this up?
Then what about the film he was planning to prepare showing the Premium Bond sorter, so that many of the punters on Premium Bonds could see that it is a fair machine? The right hon. Gentleman had in mind developing a film of some kind which could be put on television showing how the machine works.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would have been very pleased if he had been here at the outset of the debate and heard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the pictorials and how they are being used to better advantage. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman appears to be relenting a little on the question of pictorial stamps. Indeed, in the last few months there have been many more appearing and many organisations' events can be commemorated. Personally I am not very pleased with the Productivity Year stamp, that picture of the United Kingdom with a thing like an arrow striking, up the spinal column of the British Isles. It looks rather like a picture of an atomic bomb explosion. I would have thought that the Postmaster-General would have intervened and used his ideas and initiative so that this pictorial for Productivity Year could have illustrated a typical example of British industry. Why not the coal mines and the mechanisation efforts in them which have increased productivity in the last


twelve months by 8 per cent.—a nationalised industry, British industry, which is doing well? The Postmaster-General really has got a great opportunity if he intends to relax on this question of pictorials. Many of our industries could be portrayed, and many of our literary figures, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire said, could also be portrayed.
We know the argument about diminishing the status of the Monarch's head on the stamp and about our being the only nation in the world which does not have the name on its issues. This can still be done on our pictorials. The right hon. Gentleman has proved it with his castle issues, which are fine examples. So I hope that he will take more and better opportunities in the future now that he is tending to relax on pictorials, and broaden their scope.
I should like to turn now to another question of which, again, the Postmaster-General made no mention in his speech, but which, nevertheless, is very important and relevant to this debate, and that is the question of bulk supply agreements. He knows quite well that he and his Department have been the subject of a great deal of criticism by the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee told him that it was disgraceful that he did not allow outside tenders for telephone equipment, exchange equipment, cables and so forth, and that he appeared to be protecting the ring of manufacturers, and that the Postmaster-General and, indeed, the House, were not getting any assurance of value for money under this method, and the Committee recommended that the Postmaster-General should break the ring and give other manufacturers a chance.
In the last Report of the Post Office, dated 1961–62, the Comptroller and Auditor General says:
In June l962 I asked the Post Office whether any decision had yet been reached on the conclusion of new agreements and was informed that the position remained as stated in the Treasury Minute of 17th November 1961"—
eight months previously.
The matter was under examination by Ministers and the Postmaster-General hoped to make a statement shortly. The Post Office also informed me that the value of orders placed in 1961…62 under each of the four agreements and of orders placed with other

contractors following competitive tender under the reservation clauses was as follows.
For cable, the agreement contractors—those are the ring—had contracts to the value of £9,988,000, and other contractors nil. For loading coils the ring got £416,000 worth of contracts, and other contractors nil. For telephone exchange equipment—this includes the new devices such as the large equipment which the Post Office is now developing—the ring got contracts to the value of £22,810,000 and other contractors £179,000. For telephone apparatus the ring got contracts worth £11,817,000 and other contractors £508,000.
The Postmaster-General was pressed a number of times in the House to make a statement. Finally he made a comment in the House in reply to a Question on 24th July, 1962, as reported in c. 1261 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He said that he was now prepared to change the present arrangements and that the purchasing of cable and loading coils as from April next would be open to competitive tender. That is very good. In respect of telephone apparatus, when the contract comes up for renewal next April, there will he provision to allow an increase from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. of orders to be placed with outside contractors. He proposes to continue the arrangements for exchange equipment unchanged.
It is a welcome start that the right hon. Gentleman is now gradually attempting to break the monopoly position of Plessey, the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company and Ericsson Telephones. Hon. Members who have been watching this matter will no doubt be aware that these three firms merged three months ago and captured 40 per cent. of the G.P.O. contracts for telecommunications and telephone equipment. If we now look at the situation, the position after April, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will be that contracts for cables and loading coils of a total value of £10,404,000 will be subject to open tender. I am using last year's figures. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's planned expansion of this equipment, no doubt the contracts may well be bigger.
In respect of telephone apparatus the total value of contracts will be £12,325,000, and 25 per cent. of these will go to open tender. The value of


contracts for telephone exchange equipment is £22,810,000, and these will remain within the ring, no outside competitors being allowed to tender for them. In other words, there will be £45 million worth of work wanted by the G.P.O., and £32 million of it will still be cornered by the ring. To us this is still far from satisfactory. We note that Plessey is very much involved. It is in a key position in the ring. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not holding back from allowing more competition because of pressures which may be applied from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmuir, and the ex-Minister of Defence, who are—

Mr. Bevins: That really is an outrageously unworthy thing for the hon. Gentleman to say. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House know me well enough to know that that is wholly untrue.

Mr. Mason: As the right hon. Gentleman has risen, we shall have to accept that assurance, but he must not try to tell the House that these two very influential Members of both Houses of Parliament, who are now influential men at the top of this firm which happens to be in a key position in supplying exchange equipment and telephone apparatus to the right hon. Gentleman, are not going to exert influence with him if they can. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman says that he will not bend or relent or give way. We applaud him for that, but he must recognise that these influences are at work, as we on this side of the House have recognised it.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member is too naïve politically if he believes that any such influences are at work, either upon me or any of my right hon. Friends in the Government.

Mr. Mason: All right. The right hon. Member defends his position but when we have had a ring situation, a monopoly, in this equipment for so many years and when the Public Accounts Committee has assailed it and has criticised the Post Office because of this situation, the Postmaster-General cannot just push it easily on one side. We accept his assurance that he does not

bend to any of these pressures, but because pressure groups are developing in many spheres, not only in Post Office matters but in others, we must recognise that they may, according to the strength of the Minister concerned, have influence. On the subject of bulk supply agreements, the right hon. Gentleman could go further, especially in line with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee.
We have warned the right hon. Gentleman many times about over-commercialising the Post Office and its services. Many of them are essential and do not pay. No matter what he tries, some of them will continue to run into debt. We hope that he will see that he does not over-commercialise with a consequent loss of the value of the marginal services. In the last twelve months or so he has increased the charges for hospital lines being used to relay sporting events to patients, football matches on Saturday afternoons in particular. We regard that as a rather mean charge. Now he is to increase the cost of telegrams which some regard as an emergency service. This appears to be a discriminatory act. He is also opposed to more telephone kiosks because he is losing money on them, yet in rural districts they provide a necessary emergency service.
So it goes on. I hope that he will heed our plea and remember that the Post Office is still a public service, not one to be run solely with profit in mind.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) spoke at some length about rockets in space. Will he say whether at the next election the Labour Party will propose to nationalise space?

10.2 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) probably put his finger on one of the basic differences between the two sides of the House when he concluded his speech, and we can dispose of it quickly. He asked that we should not over-commercialise the Post Office. We have no intention of doing so. The Post Office has a place in our society and we are as interested as anyone in seeing that it keeps its proper place. However, once one starts to ask that the Post Office should not be over-commercialised, one begins to lose sight


of some of the facts of life. If we are to provide increased services and to connect more telephone subscribers, we must have a large amount of capital investment, and that must be found from somewhere. It is probably one of the fundamental differences between us that we believe that in this, as in any other service, the money must be found from somewhere to continue to provide the service and to increase the benefits to be obtained from it.
The Eon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) asked whether the share of capital investment found from revenue would continue to run at between 60 and 72 per cent. In fact for 1963–64 it is down to 55 per cent. of the total.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman go a step further and say that it will be maintained at SO to 55 per cent?

Mr. Mawby: I could not give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but the important thing is that in providing 55 per cent. this year, with the support we are getting from the Treasury, we should be able to do a great deal with that amount.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important question of extending the services of the Post Office and going to spheres of potential business. He instanced in particular people who delivered literature issued by various companies and asked whether the Post Office was interested in this business. The household delivery of literature is being seriously studied, and we wish to take advantage of the opportunities to engage in further business. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as agreement is reached with the staff we hope to make an announcement and take action along those lines. We are not allowing the grass to grow under our feet and we are going all out to get all the business that we can, but naturally we do not want to take the final step before we have reached agreement with the staff on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman, and several other hon. Members, made the point that our forecasts had been badly out.

Mr. W. R. Williams: On the question of the expansion of services, I also

referred to the Giro system. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about that?

Mr. Mawby: I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman the other day when this matter was raised on the Adjournment. It will be realised from what I said then that we have not closed our minds to this matter, and if we were assured of a reasonable return on this type of business, naturally we should take steps to get it.
As regards the financial forecasts, it is obvious that these must be out, because, as my right hon. Friend said, business has been less buoyant, and pay awards have been heavier than were predicted. One can therefore undersstand the figure being out on that count.
I do not think one can say that S.T.D. is 12 months behind schedule. We said by March, 1963, 500 exchanges serving one-third of all subscribers would have S.T.D. This has been broadly achieved but naturally in some cases we have fallen behind expectations.
The hon. Gentleman chided us on the fact that we had not fulfilled, and were not likely to, the points which N.E.D.C. had made. The figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted from N.E.D.C. were given to N.E.D.C. by the Post Office. We are conscious of the challenge they point, particularly in regard to manpower, and we shall discuss with the staff any steps that we take, to make certain that we have a forward look at the situation.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about the increase in the overseas printed paper postage rate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) raised the question of hard-backed books as well as paper backed ones. It is important to point out that the revenue from all overseas printed postage covers about half the cost of running the service. The increased charges announced by my right hon. Friend will reduce the loss we are making by about half—from £3 million to £1·7 million. Many foreign countries charge as much as or more than we do for this service—Austria, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden being among them. In such a matter as this the size of the loss we make must be taken into


consideration, and the step to reduce the loss by half must be regarded as a reasonable one.
Many hon. Members have raised the question of the increase in telegram charges. So many hon. Members raised the point that I do not need to list them; it would be easier to list those who did not speak about them.

Mr. Ross: Send us a telegram.

Mr. Mawby: The question we must ask ourselves is whether the telegram service ought to be subsidised and, if so, at what amount. In the last three years the deficit from the service has risen. In 1959–60 the deficit per telegram was 4s. 3d.; in 1960–61 it rose to 4s. 7d., and in 1961–62 to 5s. O½d. Is it right that the users of the other services of the Post Office should subsidise the telegram service?
It has been said that this is the sort of service which is used by people who have not got or cannot get a telephone. In many cases a letter performs very much the kind of service for which many people use a telegram.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that I was not trying to be difficult when I referred to deaths and illnesses occurring in the lower income groups. In such cases relatives and friends can be summoned hurriedly to the bedside by a telegram. Nobody would sit down and write a letter.

Mr. Mawby: I agree. It is a fact that from time to time telegrams are used to notify relatives of death or sudden illness. But we must bear in mind what percentage of the total number of telegrams sent come into this category. Life and death messages account for only about ·3 per cent. of the total number of telegrams, whereas about two-thirds of the total traffic is social traffic. As there are about 8½ million social messages a year, this number represents less than one per household per annum. It is important to bear that fact in mind.
The consumer survey of the service in 1956 showed that the people who sent greetings telegrams at that time tended to belong to the higher income groups, and to have telephones in any case. Hon. Members who have spoken on the

subject have agreed that what we are concerned about is not the person who wants to send a greetings telegram to someone who has just got married, or for any of the other reasons for which they are sent. Telegrams in this category account for 30 per cent. of the total traffic. We are really interested in the 1·3 per cent. who find it necessary on special occasions to send a telegram.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise the point that we have all been trying to make? We are not talking about the 1·3 per cent. of the total number of telegrams sent, but the percentage of telegrams sent by people in the lower income groups.

Mr. Mawby: It would be impossible for the Post Office to ascertain that information. When people send telegrams, they are not asked by the Post Office what is their income group.

Mr. Ross: From the way in which the charges are going up, the Post Office will need to do that.

Mr. Mawby: A deficit of 5s. 1½d. on every telegram sent is too high, particularly when we take into account the relatively small number of telegrams which are of the "life and death" type. Basically, it is important that this relatively small increase should be made to ensure, not that the service pays its way but that other users do not have to subsidise the service.

Mr. Ross: Surely, because they represent a relatively small proportion, these telegrams could be isolated and the necessary increase put on "social telegrams" as the Minister has described them.

Mr. Mawby: We should have to prove that they were "life and death" telegrams.

Mr. Manuel: Oh dear!

Mr. Mawby: A special charge may be made for a greetings telegram. But if someone sends an ordinary telegram, an extra duty would be put on the sub-postmaster to satisfy himself that it was a telegram which would come into the 1·3 per cent. category; that it was a "life and death "message. One knows from the messages which appear in the personal columns of newspapers that often the text of a message can be different


from the meaning. It would be extremely difficult to differentiate if we laid down that certain types of telegrams could be sent at a special subsidised rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred again to the size and weight limits for parcels sent overseas. The present maximum weight is 22 lb. and the maximum size is 3 ft. 6 in. long and 6 ft. in length and girth combined. To meet the requirements of the Premier Drum Company, to which my hon. Friend referred, the Post Office would have to make a special extension of its limit. The company's parcels would not fit the Post Office parcels bags and they would be too large for the parcel fittings and equipment. Post Office experts have visited some of the European countries where heavier and larger parcels are handled, in order to study the arrangements in those countries. A number of alternative schemes for the acceptance and handling of larger parcels have been examined in detail. It has become clear, however, that any useful extension of our present limits would call for special handling of larger and heavier parcels in sorting offices away from the main stream of parcel traffic. This would add to costs and mean high postage rates.
The Universal Postal Union's Parcel Post Agreement, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, places a ceiling on the amounts we can include in our postage rates for conveyance abroad. The cost of sea transport of parcels over 22 lb. in weight going to many of the destinations for which there is most traffic would take us above the amount we can recover in postage. We should therefore lose money on every heavyweight postal parcel accepted for the destinations concerned. Any change in ceilings would mean that any increases could not become effective until 1965. The Premier Drum Company apart, there is very little evidence of demand from exporters for any increase in the size or weight limits for parcels sent abroad by post, and it becomes very doubtful whether any extension of our limits would be justified at present.
Only recently we have raised from 15 lb. to 22 lb. the weight limit for parcels in the inland service, and it is desirable that we should have time to absorb the increased traffic that this

problems which its handling may throw up before making any further extensions. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), who was concerned about parcels traffic to Northern Ireland, that the Postmaster-General will consider the question of carrying parcels by air. I must point out, however, that the cost at the end of the day may be considered too high.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has evidently been a very patient Member for a long time. I cannot say anything at the moment about the provision of which he spoke of a Crown Post Office at Ashton-in-Makerfield. I shall be happy to meet him and discuss the whole problem with him and also the improvement he suggested in some of the sub-post offices in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) made some interesting suggestions. He referred to the return which is made to sub-postmasters. I must point out that sub-postmasters are not civil servants but are more in the nature of agents who undertake to provide facilities for the conduct of Post Office business, of which there are 23,000 scale payment sub-offices. The express letter service of which he spoke is already in being and an extra payment can be made. It guarantees a service faster even than the very good service we get for the 3d. mail.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised the question of the effect of railway changes upon the Post Office generally. He also raised a point about the proportion of capital expenditure to be spent in Scotland. He was very altruistic in not being merely interested in Scotland but also in other parts of the country with similar problems. This is a view which I believe is held by most hon. Members. Other things being equal—price, delivery and so on—development district firms are given preference over others. If firms in development districts do not secure a substantial part of the order, normally 25 per cent., on the first tendering, the lowest unsuccessful tenderer among them is offered part of the order at a price which is such that the whole cost of the contract will be no higher than if full competition had been allowed to prevail.
The essence of the scheme is that it does not involve Government Departments in extra cost. Where it is possible to undertake more work at factories in development districts without loss of efficiency there is no reason to suppose that the firms are not already responsive to the appeals the Government have made to industry generally. We investigate all applications made by firms, or by trade associations on their behalf, to be added to our list of suppliers. In 1961–62 we examined over 1,000 applications and added 400 firms to our trade lists. When tenders are invited we review our records of firms in the depressed areas to ensure that no likely supplier is overlooked.
We can only more or less estimate the pattern. As to the purchasing pattern of this capital development, we believe that about 15 per cent. will go to development districts, 2·5 per cent. in Scotland. 2·7 per cent. in the North-East. We are examining the possibility of increasing the proportions of our orders in these areas. This is on orders which will be placed. We calculate capital investment by the Post Office in Scotland to be nearer 9 per cent. of the total.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) mentioned the question of the Burns stamp. He also told us what the man in the Soviet Union had said to him. He asked, apparently, "Why do you not in Britain treat your literary giants like we do?" I know of one or two literary men in this country who are rather glad that we do not. As the hon. Gentleman knows from the different statements which have been made by my right hon. Friend and myself at Question Time, we are certainly liberalising the whole attitude towards stamp policy, and I have no doubt that, if the hon. Gentleman continues to put this pressure on, he will find that he is not pushing against a locked door.
The hon. Member for Openshaw said that he could not defend services where the service was taking a couple of days to get through. This is perfectly true. It is something that I could not defend either, nor would my right hon. Friend seek to do so. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about the parcel post service. The parcel post service is not all that it should be. We are making strenuous efforts to improve it. In the

short term, we are working closely with the Railways Board to speed up the transit of parcel mails on the railways. We are sure that the Board will do everything possible to help. For the long term, we are looking at the whole basis of our arrangements for getting parcel mails about the country. The reorganisation we have in mind will mean concentrating parcel mails on suitable centres, dispatching them mainly by rail in bulk consignments between those centres, and making fairly considerable use of road transport for distributing the parcels from the centres. We expect this not only to improve the service for our customers but also to reduce costs. As a test of this reorganisation, we intend shortly to start the large-scale experiment covering the whole of East Anglia about which the hon. Member for Openshaw spoke earlier. He also asked questions about it. We are keeping in close touch with the Railways Board in these matters.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that we used the expression "long term" in its usual connotation. It does not apply now because as from next Wednesday we do not know how many lines will be closed. The situation has become very urgent.

Mr. Mawby: As I said earlier, already our reorganisation is designed to move in bulk on main railway lines to the distributing centres and for the distributing to be done a great deal more by road. This goes some way to answering the points made by the hon. Gentleman on what steps we are taking to try to maintain as high a standard of service as possible.

Mr. Hilton: The hon. Gentleman says that the East Anglia experiment is likely to start soon. Can he give us an idea when this will be?

Mr. Mawby: In the next month or so. I cannot be any nearer than that.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the problem that parcels sent by rail from my constituency get to London by next morning—and of this there can be no doubt at all—but because of over-centralisation and possibly because of the reconstruction at Marylebone there are interminable delays and parcels going south of London take six to seven days to reach their destination?

Mr. Mawby: This is one of the problems. The difficulty which we have to face in moving parcels from sender to receiver is that there are many complex problems and solving one of them does not solve them all.
The question of mechanical parcel sorting has been raised several times. Here we are making more rapid progress than we had dared to expect. Following trials with a variety of equipment we have now obtained a new type of parcel sorting machine which we believe will meet all our requirements. This machine is on trial at Preston and Worcester and has passed all its tests with flying colours —so much so that we have already decided to equip another dozen or so large offices with it. This answers questions asked in the debate about how long we experiment before we put equipment into operation.
During the last year we have continued with the conversion of Crown post office counters to all-purpose service and we now have the system in operation at about 1,440 offices. Further conversions will takes place as reconstruction and modernisation schemes are completed. There is no doubt that the new system provides a better service for our customers and it has been widely welcomed.
The hon. Member for Openshaw raised the question of wages in relation to costs. and I should like to say a few words about finance. There are fundamental differences in the financial problems of the two main services—postal and telecommunications.
The postal service has a very high labour content by the very nature of its business. Of the total expenditure of £232 million in 1961–62, £34 million is the total cost of contract conveyance of mails by rail, road, sea and air, and no less than £175 million of the remainder is in respect of staff, including pension liability. Some 30 per cent. of these staff costs are incurred in the actual delivery of letters and are clearly related to the frequency and pattern of our delivery arrangements.
Although great efforts have been made to introduce machinery into the letter sorting processes we are still a long way from achieving the spectacular success necessary if substantial economies are to be made. The variety in the type of mail is in itself a great handicap to machine

sorting, and a greater degree of standardisation of mail matter would be a considerable help. As has been pointed out, we are working to achieve standardisation in consultation with envelope manufacturers. The fact remains that until a machine is devised capable of reading addresses, all mail matter has to be passed through at least one hand process, if only so that it can be coded.
The pattern of our postal service under which 50 per cent. of the mail is posted after 5 p.m. and even a higher proportion —80 per cent. to 90 per cent.—is delivered on the first delivery creates peak conditions which by their nature do not enable the most economic staffing methods to be used. Further, the building of additional houses, many of them far removed from delivery offices, adds continually to the cost of delivery. For all these reasons, improved productivity in the postal service is extremely difficult to achieve, and the service is very susceptible to increases in wages. In fact, during the past 10 years increased expenditure due to improved pay and oilier conditions has averaged 4·3 per cent. per annum of total expenditure whereas improvement in productivity has averaged only 0·3 per cent. We must, therefore, face the fact that unless (a) there is a sustained national economic growth at an unprecedentedly high rate, in which case new income should rise decidedly faster than the real cost of earning it, and (b) there is also much greater wage restraint, rising charges for postal services will be the only alternative to subsidisation, whether by telecommunications or the taxpayer, or a lowering of the standard of service.
In telecommunications the financial problem is different. Technological advances during the last thirty years, particularly in long-distance communications, have been very significant. Improved productivity can be achieved by the introduction of more machinery and the latest techniques. For these reasons it is necessary that relatively large sums of money should be spent on, first, the expansion of the service to cater for the increasing demands being made upon it, and, second, to replace old equipment and to introduce the most modern techniques.
The pattern of telecommunications expenses is different from that of the


postal service. Of the total expenditure —£250 million—interest and depreciation together amount to £92 million, and of the remainder, £129 million represents labour costs. This is still a very significant part of the total expenditure, and increases in wages of the order of 6 per cent., which is what has happened in the last year, cannot be absorbed by improved productivity even in a service where technological improvements in certain sections are making a significant contribution. In fact, average figures for the past ten years similar to those that I have given for postal are 3·5 per cent. pay rates, etc., and 1·8 per cent. productivity. Thus, though the problem is less formidable, the same points arise as regards future prospects.
I think the House would agree that it would not be wrong for me to repeat what so many have done earlier in the

debate, including my right hon. Friend, namely, to pay a compliment to the staff for the tremendous work which they have done and their unfailing efforts during the severe winter. We have received tributes from many quarters, and the staff must be pleased to know that the discomfort and inconvenience that they suffered are appreciated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Postmaster-General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund for the financial year ending with the 31st March, 1964.

Resolved,
That the limit of the Postmaster-General's indebtedness to the Exchequer under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Post Office Act 1961 be increased from eight hundred and eighty million pounds to nine hundred and sixty million pounds.—[Mr. Bevies.]

YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD (TARIFFS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.39 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Some few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) raised the question of the increased tariff charges levelled by the Yorkshire Electricity Board, applicable from 1st April this year. He dealt with the problem in a way that I should have thought was rather critical of the Yorkshire Electricity Consultative Council. I do not propose to condemn the Consultative Council, nor the Yorkshire Electricity Board tonight. I do not propose to criticise either of those two bodies. It is true that the Yorkshire Electricity Board is the agency for fixing finally the tariff charges for electricity in the Yorkshire area, but the Board is not responsible primarily for the huge increase. The fact is that the hands are those of Esau, but the voice is that of Jacob. The Board might have been the instrument in announcing the changes, but the villain of the piece is the Government. I want to prove my point.
I distinguish the electricity industry from the other nationalised fuel and power industries, but one feature is common to them all. I exclude the oil industry, because that is not nationalised. As I see it, the nationalised fuel and power industries are the victims of Government's hatred of nationalisation. The Government have denuded them of all those aspects of development that would have enabled them to make a contribution to the development of British industry far more important than anything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do by way of concessions in Income Tax or even in Profits Tax.
Had the Government encouraged the nationalised fuel and power industries by giving them the opportunity to develop by a policy of cheap money, it would have been a marvellous investment in every one of our complicated industries. This is a tempting subject to embark upon, and the fundamental background of my criticisms is that I

have to particularise. I must point out that the Government have, in particular, shamefully neglected the development of the electricity industry.
When the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West raised this problem, part of the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary was as follows:
One possible view that I would commend to him as worthy of attention is that the reason why the increases were so sharp is that they should have happened before and had been too long postponed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 1626.]
The Parliamentary Secretary forgets that the main reason for the increases is not the normal increase in costs and in all kinds of overheads which occurs over a period of time, but was a Government decree in the shape of the White Paper, issued in April, 1961, virtually compelling nationalised industries to follow a certain course in financing their development.
In regard to the electricity undertakings, and the Yorkshire electricity undertaking in particular, I cannot see the reason for that course unless it is to price electricity out of the market. Having secured what I might call the full coverage of the total cost of the electricity, the Government intend to sell it, as they have done in the case of some of the other nationalised industries, at a profit to their pals. But I am not suggesting that seriously. I am suggesting, however, that that is imposing upon the present consumers of electricity in Yorkshire a cost which ought to be borne over the years by those yet to come.
Let us look at some of the figures. Until this year the highest surplus for which the Yorkshire Electricity Board had budgeted and had realised was that of the last five years, a £5 million surplus. Seemingly, that was satisfactory. In all comments on the balance sheets issued a great deal of praise was directed to the Board for its enterprise and for the work which it had done. There was no whisper at all of complaint against the Board. But now, at one fell swoop, the Board is compelled to provide for a surplus of £23 million as against one of £5 million, and again over a five-year period. That is an increase, in terms of budgetary surplus, of 340 per cent.
The Board has been compelled by Government decree to increase the estimated revenue from £80 million over the


five years to £94 million, by 17½ per cent. over the previous five years. For many reasons even this 17½ per cent. will be increased, because in many respects there will be more profitable matters which I have not time to indicate now and which will really enlarge that figure.
But there has also been a change in the proportion of that revenue which goes to capital, and this is why I am saying that the inference which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West was wrong. Nearly all the huge increases in the tariff rates will go to capital development, not to natural increases in the price of electricity due to a rise in the cost of living or anything of that kind; but purely and simply all of it will go by reason of capital development. The previous proportion was half. It is difficult to find an industry in this country where the proportion was as high as it was before this alteration, but now 58½ per cent. of the revenue of the Yorkshire Electricity Board will go to capital development, and it will save the sum to be borrowed, it is said, by the Board. It means that consumers today are paying for those, in some cases, not yet born.
Why is this? Why do I condemn the the Government? Purely and simply because it was the Government's fault; it was the White Paper of April, 1961, that caused this. The reason for this direction to the Board has been that the rapid and continued increase in the demand for electricity involves very heavy capital expenditure and this means that in future the Board must borrow a lesser proportion for new capital than in the past and find for development a higher proportion from income. That is why more of revenue has to go to capital development.
What will the effect be? The Board had a certain formula for the tariff based on the number of rooms per house, and each house had an allowance for each room and another allowance at a rate of 1·25d. per unit and an overall allowance at the rate of 0·9d. per unit. That has been altered. Now for the first 72 units there is a charge of 6d. per unit, and thereafter a charge of 1 1/10d. per unit.
What is the result? Here are some facts. A house with four rooms consuming 500 units per quarter will pay an increase for the quarter of 12s. 2d., or 17½ per cent. A house with five rooms con-

suming 1,000 units per quarter will pay an extra £1 Os. 3d., or 17½ per cent. A house with six rooms consuming 1,500 units per quarter will pay an extra £1 18s. 3d., or 24 per cent.
I have here my electricity bill delivered last week, and here I speak feelingly. I consumed 4,887 units, and this will cost me this time £20 15s. 5d. Next year that would cost me more than £27, an increase of 35 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary said that most of the increases would fall within 1s. per week. That is not the evidence that I have. In 10 illustrations which I have here and which I have furnished to the Press 1s. per week is easily exceeded. This is a very important consideration.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that to institute a Government decree to force an increase of 340 per cent. in the estimated surplus of the Board can do other than reflect itself in the price of electricity in the household and thereby create a demand for higher wages in industry? Does he not think that this huge increase will play a part in the industrial life of Yorkshire?
I come from the City of Sheffield, which is very important, dealing as it does with heavy industry. Most of the letters which I have received protesting against the increase have been from firms in Sheffield. Many of them protest because the ordinary increase in charges applying to factories is almost prohibitive. Many industrialists with electric are furnaces are even more worried. It is true that at present many of them have an agreement involving a time factor and nothing can be done about their electricity charges until the time has expired, but many in Sheffield are wondering whether, when the time has expired, the increase in the price of electricity will not play a very important part in the cost of steel produced from electric are furnaces. If that leads, on the one hand, to demands for increased wages, and, on the other, to increases in the price of commodities, I suggest that the policy which has been pursued by the Government ought to be re-examined from the point of view of what a nationalised industry ought to do in terms of service to the community.
The National Incomes Commission and the National Economic Development Council have to be considered just as much as the price of electricity to the ordinary consumer; and in my district,


and I suspect in many others, this policy is more politically deadly than anything else the Government have done in the last 12 months, and that is saying a great deal, because during that time the Government have been condemned for many things.
The Government have been more strongly condemned over this increase in the price of electricity than over anything else in recent months, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do something to help not only Yorkshire but all the other areas which are feeling the pinch as much as we are. The policy laid down in the 1961 White Paper should be scrapped and replaced by one which is more progressive and more in the interests of the people.

10.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) has fairly reminded the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) was the first hon. Member to raise the unpleasant and uncomfortable question of the increases in the tariffs of the Yorkshire Electricity Board. It was my unpleasant duty to tell my hon. Friend on that occasion that I had little comfort to offer him, and I can see no possible reason for altering my message tonight in answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman started his speech with a slightly cryptic reference to Jacob and the hands of Esau. I got muddled up as to who I was, or whose birthright I had pinched, or perhaps the Board had pinched the birthright—

Mr. Winterbottom: The moral of the story was that somebody was twisting.

Mr. Peyton: I was not clear who it was, but the hon. Gentleman, to my relief, went on to say that no attack was intended on either the Yorkshire Electricity Board or the Consultative Council. I believe that the Board has put forward these price increases after very careful consideration with the Consultative Council, which is only right and proper. Neither body has been concerned to court popularity. They have been concerned to do what is right in the interests of the electricity industry, and ultimately in the interests of its consumers, and anyone standing at this Box is bound, as I do, to give them his fullest support.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was a deliberate act of malice and spite in pursuit of the Government hatred of nationalisation. He went on to say that we had denuded the industry—a charming expression this—of the ability to contribute to the national economy. The industry is currently borrowing from the Exchequer at the rate of about £200 million a year. I do not think that the hon. Member is justified in describing that as denudation.
He went on to say that we had neglected the development of electricity. Again I remind him of the fact that the electricity industry—

Mr. Winterbottom: Is it not true that the borrowing will fall from 54·1 per cent. to 41·5 per cent., and that the amount to be provided out of revenue will increase thereby?

Mr. Peyton: I want to make it clear to the hon. Member—I do not challenge his figures—that the Yorkshire Electricity Board will in future be borrowing about 42 per cent. of its capital requirements. He must not say that we are deliberately denuding the industry, bearing in mind the fact that the industry will be borrowing from the Exchequer at a rate of about £200 million a year. This does not amount to denudation, whatever else it adds up to.
The hon. Member was good enough to quote my speech to the House on 14th February, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West. After his reminding the House what I then said, namely, that these increases had for too long been postponed, I can only say that I see no reason whatever to depart from or to qualify that statement tonight. He went on to quote me further as saying that the increases in tariffs now made by the Yorkshire Electricity Board were due partly to increases in costs and partly to the White Paper policy of the Government. That is exactly what I said on that occasion.
I cannot add very much to what I then said. I first made the point that labour and material costs had increased, and then I referred to
the White Paper which set out the Government's views on the financial obligations of nationalised industries. I know that my hon. Friend is very well aware of its contents, but I must just weary him and the House with a repetition of its main purposes.


The first purpose, as my hon. Friend knows, was to secure the, so I should have thought, desirable objective that users of electricity should themselves provide a reasonable contribution in terms of capital to meet the demand which they themselves have had and are having a large part in creating. The second purpose was that the level of earnings in a nationalised industry, particularly the electricity industry, should be a little nearer the average earnings of industry on the capital invested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 1627.]
I repeat that I see no reason to qualify what I then said, or to depart, from it. I entirely fail to follow, to accept, or to agree with the charge that the hon. Member has levelled at the Government, that this policy represents an act of consummate malice against nationalised industries.
He said some obscure things. He was modest, and said that he did not want to press the charge that part of the trouble was due to the profit of the past. I did not understand what he was referring to—and it appeared that he did not understand it, either.
He said that the Yorkshire Electricity Board had in the past five years been making a surplus of £5 million, and that in the next five years it would be expected to make a profit of £23 million—in other words, an average of £4·6 million in each of those years. This represents the earning of a little more than 4 per cent. on the net assets employed. I do not think that he or anyone else could maintain that that is a grotesquely high or optimistic target to ask of an industry which is expanding at the rate at which this one is.
The idea that the electricity industry, of all industries, will be brought to a sudden stop in its expansion because the customer is asked to pay for what he is having, is quite grotesque. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that until a few years ago the industry was expanding at a rate of 6 per cent. per annum. Now the industry is expanding at about 8 per cent. per annum. In other words, it has just about doubled itself over 10 years. Even the hon. Gentleman must recognise that this has made a formidable demand on its resources.

Mr. Winterbottom: Nonsense!

Mr. Peyton: Investment in the industry will not be far short of £400 million this year, and next year it will increase, and

will continue to increase. I do not think it right or reasonable that the hon. Gentleman should disregard the amount of national resources being absorbed by this rapidly expanding industry.
The hon. Gentleman said that the natural increase in cost was not the reason for what had happened. I readily admit that it is necessary to provide for this and that the consumer also should provide for future capital development. What other source has the hon. Gentleman in mind from which to find the resources?

Mr. Winterbottom: rose—

Mr. Peyton: I cannot give way. I have only two minutes—

Mr. Winterbottom: I could tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman has only one choice. It must be the taxpayer or the Exchequer. In other words, he proposes to divert a further proportion of the national resources to the expansion of this industry rather than to spend this money on roads, schools or hospitals, or on the many other competing avenues for expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman said that the consumer today was being asked to pay for electricity supplies which would be enjoyed by consumers not yet born. We must remember that the expanding demand on the industry results from the demands of present-day consumers who are the people who press the switches and bring more and more electrical appliances into their houses. I am telling the hon. Gentleman and, through him, the House, that the present-day customer is responsible. He may have been wrongly encouraged in the past by too low prices, but the present-day consumer is responsible for the sharp increase in demand. The hon. Gentleman has almost entirely disregarded the rate at which the industry is expanding and the fact that a running rate of 0·9d. per unit of electricity is thoroughly uneconomic. He has little regard for the opinion of—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.